FRAMED

Final Design Report May 31st, 2019

Human Powered Vehicle Frame Cal Poly Human Powered Vehicle Club California Polytechnic State University, Mechanical Engineering Department

Kyra Schmidt [email protected] Keyanna Henderson [email protected] Brendon Morey [email protected] Austin Henry [email protected]

Client: George Leone [email protected]

Statement of Disclaimer

Since this project is a result of a class assignment, it has been graded and accepted as fulfillment of the course requirements. Acceptance does not imply technical accuracy or reliability. Any use of information in this report is done at the risk of the user. These risks may include catastrophic failure of the device or infringement of patent or copyright laws. California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo and its staff cannot be held liable for any use or misuse of the project.

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 11 2 Background...... 12 2.1 Geometry ...... 12 2.2 Material Selection ...... 14 2.3 Safety and Loading Cases ...... 14 2.4 Observations from Battle Mountain ...... 15 2.5 Patents ...... 16 2.6 Handling Analysis ...... 16 3 Objectives ...... 18 3.1 Boundary Diagram ...... 18 3.2 Customer Needs and Wants ...... 19 3.3 Quality Function Deployment ...... 19 3.4 Specifications ...... 19 4 Concept Design ...... 21 4.1 Concept Evaluation ...... 21 4.2 Initial Frame Concepts ...... 22 4.2.1 Composite Monocoque Frame with Roll Hoop ...... 23 4.2.2 Steel Tubing Frame with Roll Hoop and Bottom Bracing ...... 23 4.2.3 Steel Tubing Frame with Roll Hoop, Bottom and Side Bracing ...... 24 4.2.4 Steel Tubing Frame with Roll Hoop and Limited Bottom Bracing ...... 24 4.2.5 Aluminum Frame with Roll Hoop, Side, and Bottom Bracing ...... 25 4.3 Initial Fork Concepts ...... 25 4.3.1 Standard Fork with Offset Plate ...... 25 4.3.2 Bent Fork Blades using Straight Tubing ...... 26 4.3.3 Standard Fork Blades welded with Custom Offset ...... 26 4.4 The Decision Process ...... 26 4.5 Final Concept ...... 27 4.5.1 Description ...... 28 4.5.2 Layout Models ...... 29 4.5.3 Concept Prototype ...... 31 4.5.4 Preliminary Analyses and Tests ...... 32 4.5.5 Risks, Challenges, and Unknowns ...... 34 5 Final Design ...... 35 5.1 Description ...... 35 5.1.1 Frame ...... 36 5.1.2 Fork ...... 39 5.1.3 Frame Jigs ...... 41 5.2 Functionality ...... 43 5.3 Validation ...... 44

5.3.1 Geometry: Handling Dynamics...... 44 5.3.2 Geometry: Frontal Area ...... 47 5.3.3 Geometry: Physical Fit Tests ...... 47 5.3.4 Material Selection: Hand Calculations ...... 48 5.3.5 Material Selection: Finite Element Analysis ...... 48 5.3.6 Material Selection: Weight ...... 49 5.4 Safety, Maintenance, Repair Considerations ...... 50 5.5 Summary of Cost Analysis ...... 50 6 Manufacturing ...... 52 6.1 Procurement ...... 52 6.2 Manufacturing ...... 52 6.2.1 Manual Mill ...... 52 6.2.2 Manual Lathe ...... 53 6.2.3 CNC Mill ...... 53 6.2.4 Water Jet ...... 54 6.2.5 Cutting and Grinding ...... 55 6.2.6 Bending ...... 55 6.2.7 Mitering ...... 56 6.2.8 Welding...... 57 6.2.9 Composites ...... 59 6.2.10 Out of House Parts ...... 59 6.3 Assembly ...... 60 6.3.1 First Stage Frame Jig ...... 60 6.3.2 Second Stage Frame Jig...... 64 6.3.3 Fork Jig ...... 65 6.3.4 Steering Assembly ...... 66 6.3.5 Test Fit Schedule ...... 67 6.3.6 Assembly Issues ...... 69 6.3.7 Future Recommendations ...... 69 7 Design Verification Plan ...... 71 7.1 Specifications ...... 71 7.2 Testing ...... 71 7.2.1 Load Testing ...... 72 7.2.2 Test Fitting ...... 74 7.2.3 Weld Testing ...... 74 7.2.4 Weight ...... 75 7.2.5 Center of Gravity and Radius of Gyration Testing ...... 76 8 Project Management ...... 81 8.1 The Process ...... 81 8.2 Analysis ...... 81 8.3 Purchases ...... 81 8.4 Key Deliverables and Dates ...... 81 9 Conclusion ...... 83

2

Works Cited ...... 84 Appendix A: Research on Aerodynamics and Ergonomics of Human Powered Vehicles ...... 86 Appendix B: Research on Bicycle Components that Directly Interface with the Frame ...... 87 Appendix C: Material Selection ...... 88 Appendix D: Applicable Standards from ASME, Formula SAE, and Baja SAE Rules ...... 89 Appendix E: IHPVA Rules and Regulations ...... 96 Appendix F: Photos of Battle Mountain 2018 ...... 99 Appendix G: Physical Parameters of Patterson Control Model ...... 101 Appendix H: Notes from Meeting about Old Battle Mountain Chassis ...... 102 Appendix I: Customer Needs and Wants...... 103 Appendix J: House of Quality ...... 104 Appendix K: Concept Models ...... 105 Appendix L: Concept Prototype ...... 107 Appendix M: Design Hazard Checklist ...... 109 Appendix N: Gantt Chart ...... 111 Appendix O: Purchasing Excel Documents ...... 117 Appendix P: Parts to Make Excel Documents ...... 123 Appendix Q: Setup Sheet from Front and Rear Dropouts CAM ...... 131 Appendix R: Rider Testing Measurements ...... 140 Appendix S: Failure Model and Effects Analysis ...... 141 Appendix T: Design Verification Plan ...... 142 Appendix U: Hand Calculations and FEA Verification Set Up for Bottom Bracket Deflection ... 143 Appendix V: Vertical Loading FEA Setup ...... 147 Appendix W: Side Loading FEA Setup ...... 149 Appendix X: Pedal-Input Loading FEA Setup ...... 151 Appendix Y: Tiller Steering Approximation Derivation for Patterson Control Model ...... 152 Appendix Z: Operator’s Manual ...... 155 9.1 Pre-Check ...... 155 9.2 Harness Strap-In and Release ...... 156 9.2.1 Strap-In ...... 156 9.2.2 Release ...... 158 9.3 Battle Mountain Procedures ...... 159 9.3.1 Launch ...... 159 9.3.2 Race Riding ...... 161 9.3.3 Catch ...... 162 9.4 Emergency Extraction of Rider ...... 163

3

9.5 Testing Procedures ...... 164 9.6 Pre-Test Check List ...... 165 9.6.1 Environmental Conditions ...... 165 9.6.2 Bike Setup ...... 165 9.6.3 Chase Vehicle ...... 166 Appendix AA: Testing Procedure for Experimentally Determining Center of Gravity and Radius of Gyration ...... 167 Appendix AB: Center of Gravity Hand Calculations and Schematics ...... 170 Appendix AC: Radius of Gyration Hand Calculations and Schematics ...... 172 Appendix AD: Center of Gravity Testing- Measurements and Results ...... 175 Appendix AE: Uncertainty Analysis Hand Calculations ...... 177 Appendix AF: Radius of Gyration Testing- Measurements and Results...... 178 Appendix AG: Detail Drawings ...... 180

4

List of Figures Figure 1. Graphic showing fork offset and trail [1]...... 12 Figure 2. Picture displaying Eta Prime’s fork offset...... 13 Figure 3. Eta with rider, showing the rider’s position in the frame [6]...... 13 Figure 4. Primal 2’s drivetrain and bottom bracket height in relation to the wheels...... 14 Figure 5. Visual representation of geometric parameters used in the Patterson Control Model. 16 Figure 6. Boundary Diagram depicting main subsystems of the vehicle...... 18 Figure 7. Carbon fiber monocoque design with roll hoop...... 23 Figure 8. Steel tubing design with roll hoop and bottom bracing...... 23 Figure 9. Steel frame design with roll hoop, bottom, and side bracing...... 24 Figure 10. Design sketch of frame with roll hoop and limited bottom bracing...... 24 Figure 11. Design sketch of an aluminum frame with roll hoop, side, and bottom bracing...... 25 Figure 12. Sketch of standard fork with plate connecting axle to fork blades...... 25 Figure 13. Sketch of fork constructed from bent tubing...... 26 Figure 14. Sketch of standard fork blades with custom offset...... 26 Figure 15. 3-D CAD Model of PDR concept of frame...... 28 Figure 16. Two-Dimensional Line drawing of the frame overlaid over pictures taken during rider testing, displays how the rider will fit into the bike...... 30 Figure 17. Two-Dimensional Line drawing, with rider measurements shown in grey, frame shown in green, center of gravity point shown in blue, and other important non-frame dimensions shown in pink...... 30 Figure 18. Drawing view of the 3D profile of the frame. Important dimensions called out: roll hoop angle from vertical, wheelbase, and wheel outer diameter...... 30 Figure 19. Rider testing setup with chosen rider, Josh...... 32 Figure 20. Plot displaying Control Spring versus Speed for the current iteration of the frame geometry, overlaid over the old chassis’ measurements...... 33 Figure 21. Plot displaying Sensitivity versus Speed for the current iteration of the frame geometry, overlaid over the old chassis’ measurements...... 33 Figure 22. Final frame and fork assembly design...... 35 Figure 23. Assembly of vehicle’s frame, wheels, seat, vision system, drivetrain, and fairing. ....35 Figure 24. Frame assembly...... 36 Figure 25. Standard 3-view of final frame design...... 36 Figure 26. Side view of frame. All .049” tubes are shown in blue, and all .035” tubes shown in grey...... 37 Figure 27. Frame schematic showing mounting locations for harness...... 37 Figure 28. Frame schematic showing locations where impact foam will be used...... 38 Figure 29. Overlay of frame with picture of rider, Josh, in testing jig set at final seat back angle and bottom bracket location...... 38 Figure 30. Test fit of hub spacer and rear dropouts...... 39 Figure 31. Solid model of rear dropout...... 39 Figure 32. Solid model of final fork assembly...... 39 Figure 33. Front and side views of final fork assembly...... 39 Figure 34. Fork blades from Nova Cycles...... 40 Figure 35. Headset chosen to be used with the fork assembly...... 40 Figure 36. Internal features of a threadless headset...... 40 Figure 37. Left, HT2010, 44mm ID 130mm long. Right, 1-1/8” steerer...... 41 Figure 38. Front and side views of the front dropouts...... 41 Figure 39. First stage frame jig, side view...... 42 Figure 40. First stage frame jig, isometric view...... 42 Figure 41. Second stage frame jig model...... 43

5

Figure 42. Approximation for center of gravity, shown with red star...... 44 Figure 43. Control Spring v. Speed plot for the frame’s handling characteristics, showing the PDR and CDR geometries...... 45 Figure 44. Sensitivity v. Speed plot for the frame’s handling characteristics, showing the PDR and CDR geometries...... 45 Figure 45. Josh in his final preferred position on second rider testing jig...... 47 Figure 46. Testing with physical gauges around potential pinch or hazard points of the rider with frame or drivetrain...... 48 Figure 47. Set up of the Jig Base on the manual Bridgeport...... 53 Figure 48. First operation of rear dropouts in softjaws on the VF3, a CNC mill...... 54 Figure 49. Second operation of front dropouts in softjaws on the Minimill...... 54 Figure 50. Top and Front plates being cut on the water jet...... 55 Figure 51. Keyanna Henderson using an angle grinder to cut a jig piece...... 55 Figure 52. Set up of the bottom bent member on the bender...... 56 Figure 53. Solid model of a miter with indexing cut...... 56 Figure 54. Solid model of bent tube, showing indexes on centerline in plane of bend...... 56 Figure 55. Unwrapped model of indexed cut, shown in Figure 50...... 56 Figure 56. Fork blade wrapped with paper template showing the miter...... 57 Figure 57. Middle and top side supports full welded, in progress welding the mid-drive truss members...... 57 Figure 58. Eliot, the team welder, prepping joints for welding...... 58 Figure 59. Kyra Schmidt holds a truss member in place while Eliot Briefer tacks it into the frame...... 58 Figure 60. Keyanna Henderson wetting out fiberglass cloth...... 59 Figure 61. Bottom bracket support, roll hoops, bent by Advance Tube...... 59 Figure 62. The middle side supports and top side supports, bent by Advance Tube...... 59 Figure 63. Overall first stage frame jig assembly, solid model...... 60 Figure 64. Overall first stage frame jig assembly, as built...... 60 Figure 65. Roll hoop and rear triangle set up, using tube blocks to locate for wheel spacing, solid model...... 61 Figure 66. Roll hoop and rear triangle set up, using tube blocks to locate for wheel spacing, as built...... 61 Figure 67. Front part of first stage frame jig, locating headtube and bottom bracket, solid model...... 61 Figure 68. Front part of first stage frame jig, locating headtube and bottom bracket, as built. ....61 Figure 69. First stage frame jig with roll hoop, rear triangle, head tube, bottom bracket, and bottom bracket support located...... 62 Figure 70. First stage frame jig with all members except mid-drive truss members, solid model...... 62 Figure 71. First stage frame jig with all members except mid-drive truss members, as built...... 63 Figure 72. Jigging for mid drive truss, solid model...... 63 Figure 73. Jigging for mid drive truss, as built...... 63 Figure 74. A marked and mitered mid drive truss, ready to drill...... 64 Figure 75. Second stage frame jig layout on welding table, solid model...... 64 Figure 76. Second stage frame jig layout on welding table, as built...... 64 Figure 77. Eliot Briefer, Keyanna Henderson, and Kyra Schmidt, with the last truss member to go into the frame...... 65 Figure 78. Anvil fork jig to be used in fork manufacture...... 65 Figure 79. Fork assembled on fork jig, before welding, with ...... 65 Figure 80. Fork boss set up on the drill press...... 66 Figure 81. After post machining, pressing in bearing cups with headset press...... 66

6

Figure 82. Test fit with Josh, top half of the bike and Josh in rider testing jig...... 67 Figure 83. Second major test fit, with representative length cranks, fork, bottom members and seat...... 67 Figure 84. Second major test fit, side view, checking Josh’s pedal circle clearance with the frame...... 68 Figure 85. Test fit checking clearances with leg truss members, fork with wheel assembled, and final cranks on the vehicle. Vision system and mid-drive also assembled...... 68 Figure 86. Third test fit with Josh, checking clearance on the shoulder truss members, with steering system and handlebars assembled...... 68 Figure 87. Josh in final position in bike, with all frame members full welded...... 69 Figure 88. Kyra Schmidt cutting out the incorrect bottom bracket shell...... 69 Figure 89. Vertical loading setup...... 72 Figure 90. Horizontal Loading Setup...... 72 Figure 91. Vertical Loading...... 73 Figure 92. Horizontal Loading...... 73 Figure 93. Destructive vertical loading...... 73 Figure 94. 90- degree destructive test...... 74 Figure 95. 30- degree inspection test...... 74 Figure 96. Left to Right: 90-degree sample, showing base metal failure; 30-degree sample, cross section showing full penetration; 30-degree sample, top view...... 74 Figure 97. Scale used for weighing the completed frame...... 75 Figure 98. Readout when weighing the frame individually...... 75 Figure 99. Setup for weighing of the frame...... 75 Figure 100. Schematic of measured parameters for horizontal and vertical positions of center of gravity...... 76 Figure 101. Inclined testing for center of gravity, with Josh in vehicle, and front wheel raised on foam blocks. Team members stand by to stabilize the vehicle...... 77 Figure 102. Josh Gieschen on the frame in the radius of gyration testing swing...... 78 Figure 103. Kyra Schmidt starts the swing and counts cycles, while Eliot Briefer times oscillations...... 78 Figure 104. Control spring versus speed, overlaying approximate inputs and as-built measured inputs...... 79 Figure 105. Sensitivity versus speed, overlaying approximate inputs and as-built measured inputs...... 79 Figure 106. Overall project timeline...... 82 Figure 107. The Virtual Edge by Matt Weaver...... 86 Figure 108. Pictorial depiction of the different types of headsets...... 87 Figure 109. Example of proper RPS (rollover protection system) design and side and top load case applications [18]...... 90 Figure 110. General frame schematic showing lateral connections...... 91 Figure 111. General rear roll hoop schematic...... 91 Figure 112. Interior of acceptable sleeved joint...... 92 Figure 113. General frame schematic showing side impact members...... 92 Figure 114. General frame schematic showing under seat member...... 92 Figure 115. Weld sample for destructive testing...... 93 Figure 116. Weld sample for destructive inspection...... 93 Figure 117. Driver harness schematic...... 94 Figure 118. Driver harness schematic showing mounting points...... 94 Figure 119. Lateral spacing between shoulder belts...... 95 Figure 120. Proper attachment of driver harness to frame...... 95 Figure 121. Kevlar fairing protector on IUT Annecy’s vehicle...... 99

7

Figure 122. Frame for Eta Prime...... 99 Figure 123. Rear triangle on Van Vugt...... 99 Figure 124. Wheel spacer device on Varna...... 99 Figure 125. Front fork on TU Delft’s vehicle...... 100 Figure 126. Front support on Varna...... 100 Figure 127. Frame with one under member...... 105 Figure 128. Frame with one under member, side bracing, and impact foam...... 105 Figure 129. Frame with tube bends instead of welding...... 105 Figure 130. Frame with bottom and side bracing and side and back impact foam...... 106 Figure 131. Frame resembling Primal 2...... 106 Figure 132. Hot worked bending on homemade die...... 107 Figure 133. Cold worked bending on shop jig showing this tube was bent to 100°...... 107 Figure 134. Bent tube showing failure by deformation...... 107 Figure 135. Cold worked bending on shop jig showing this tube was bent to 55°...... 107 Figure 136. Bent tube showing failure by crinkling...... 107 Figure 137. Hot Worked bending on homemade die...... 108 Figure 138. Bent tube showing no failure...... 108 Figure 139. Hot Worked bending on homemade die...... 108 Figure 140. Bent tube showing failure by crinkling...... 108 Figure 141. Hot Worked bending on homemade die...... 108 Figure 142. Bent tube showing failure by deformation...... 108 Figure 143. Bottom member support bosses...... 155 Figure 144. Bottom member mounting tabs...... 155 Figure 145. Roll hoop bosses...... 156 Figure 146. Strap-in step 1...... 156 Figure 147. Strap-in step 2...... 157 Figure 148. Strap-in step 3...... 157 Figure 149. Strap-in step 4...... 157 Figure 150. Strap-in step 5...... 157 Figure 151. Assembled latch mechanism...... 158 Figure 152. Release step 1...... 158 Figure 153. Released latch mechanism...... 158 Figure 154. Rider in vehicle prior to putting on door, Battle Mountain 2018...... 159 Figure 155. Bikes getting taped, at Battle Mountain 2018...... 160 Figure 156. Team members running alongside a launched vehicle, Battle Mountain 2018...... 160 Figure 157. The Glowworm, tandem recumbent record holder, finishing a run...... 161 Figure 158. Door removed, Primal 2...... 162

8

List of Tables Table 1. Safety Equipment Regulations ...... 14 Table 2. Relevant Patents on Designs, Materials, and Manufacturing...... 16 Table 3. Radius of Gyration for Various Seat Angles...... 17 Table 4. Boundary Diagram Definitions...... 18 Table 5. Engineering Specifications...... 20 Table 6. Pugh matrix of Rider Protection that focuses on material selection...... 22 Table 7. Pugh matrix of Rider Protection that focuses on frame structure options...... 22 Table 8. Final Weighted Decision Matrix for Frame. Based upon the criteria and weights considered, a frame ...... 27 Table 9. Final Weighted Decision Matrix for Fork. Based upon the criteria and weights considered, a fork constructed using standard fork components and welded with custom geometry would be considered for PDR...... 27 Table 10. Current Values for Frame Geometry...... 29 Table 11. Concept Prototype Test Results...... 31 Table 12. Final Geometry comparison to target values and proven vehicles ...... 46 Table 13. Final values for Patterson Control Model inputs for frame geometry ...... 46 Table 14. Summary of FEA Loading Cases and Results...... 48 Table 15. Constraints used for loading cases in FEA...... 49 Table 16. Summary cost analysis by subsystem of Frame ...... 51 Table 17. Specifications with results to date...... 71 Table 18. Roll hoop Deflection Testing Results ...... 72 Table 19. Weld Testing Results ...... 75 Table 20. Weight Testing Results...... 76 Table 21. Center of gravity testing results ...... 77 Table 22. Radius of Gyration testing results ...... 78 Table 23. Final, as-built Patterson Control Model inputs ...... 80 Table 24. Key Deliverables and Due Dates...... 82 Table 25. Physical parameters of the Patterson Control Model...... 101 Table 26. Customer Needs and Wants...... 103 Table 27. Description of Hazards and Planned Corrective Actions...... 110 Table 28. Measurements from second round rider testing with physical gauges ...... 140 Table 29. Procedures for rider and safety personnel for each crash type ...... 163

9

Abstract

The following is the Final Design Review (FDR) Report for Framed, a team tasked with designing and fabricating the frame of the 2018-2019 Cal Poly Human Powered Vehicle (HPV) Club bike. The bike is to be raced at the 2019 World Human Powered Speed Challenge in Battle Mountain, Nevada with the goal of breaking the American collegiate speed record. The purpose of the FDR Report is to introduce the project’s background and objectives, discuss the final design, and present the results of manufacturing and testing. Prior to beginning work on the design of the frame, the group conducted extensive research on human powered vehicles. This began with interviews and observations at Battle Mountain 2018, where Cal Poly HPV club members got a first-hand account of the competition, its top competitors, and their bikes. Shortly thereafter, the project team was assembled and began working to better understand how to build a bike. The team investigated existing designs of both custom and mass-produced bikes. Research was performed on material selection, aerodynamics and ergonomics, and loading cases. Applicable standards and regulations of the competition were also researched. This research clearly defined the project outline. The team identified the problem and the customer’s needs and wants. The major systems under the project scope were determined to be the frame, fork, and steering system, and the customers to be both the Cal Poly Human Powered Vehicle club and the rider, Josh Gieschen. This allowed the team to make considerations that addressed a wide range of specifications and compile a list of needs and wants. After identifying specifications and their target values, several testing procedures were developed that would verify the success of the design. Moving forward with the specifications led to the concept design process. The team began with several methods of brainstorming in order to come up with ideas for components, materials, and functions. Prototypes were then constructed that highlighted specific concepts and demonstrated their functionality. The next step was narrowing down design choices, which was accomplished with a series of matrices. The weighted decision matrix brought the team to its final concept design – a steel frame with a roll hoop, side supports with trusses, and a bottom support. The design was presented at a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and iterated upon for the Interim Design Review (IDR). Valuable feedback was received and implemented into the design and several improvements and additions were made for the Critical Design Review (CDR). The design was supported with extensive research and analysis, as well as designs for jigs to help build the frame and fork. The team also included corresponding risks, challenges, and unknowns. The Final Design Report contains the entire design and manufacturing process, as well as successes and issues encountered. It also presents in detail all testing procedures conducted, their results, and the final values met for all specifications. Although the specification of speed will not be measured until the World Human Powered Speed Challenge, the team can confirm that all other specifications were met, and the final design was manufactured and tested with complete success. An operator’s manual is included to provide instructions for both the rider and bystanders during testing and racing.

10

1 Introduction

The Human Powered Vehicle Frame Team, known as Framed, is responsible for designing, manufacturing, and testing the frame for the 2019 vehicle for the Cal Poly Human Powered Vehicle Club. The vehicle will race at the World Human Powered Speed Challenge (WHPSC) sponsored by the International Human Powered Vehicle Association (IHPVA) with the goal of breaking the American collegiate speed record. This project was conducted within a three quarter long mechanical engineering senior design course. The Framed team includes Mechanical Engineering seniors Kyra Schmidt, Keyanna Henderson, Brendon Morey, and Austin Henry. George Leone, a longtime builder of human powered vehicles and mentor for the club, will serve as the client throughout the project. The group worked closely with both the senior project team designing the vehicle’s drivetrain and with the club. The design of the Cal Poly Human Powered Vehicle frame involved considering a wide range of variables internal and external to the project. Internally, the design of the frame covered: geometry and handling characteristics, material selection, safety, rider ergonomics, structural analysis, and vehicle packaging. Externally, the team worked closely with the rider, drivetrain, fairing, braking, and various other subsystems of the bike. The following is a summary vehicle’s frame design and overall project. This report will detail the project’s research summary, objectives, design, manufacturing, testing, and project management. The background portion of this document details the initial research that was done early in the design process. The objectives chapter goes into detail on the scope of the project, specifications, and the needs and wants of the customer. The next section details conceptual designs and shows the concepts that were considered during initial design phase of the project. The final design section comes next detailing the full computer aided design (CAD) model along with design validation. Next is the manufacturing plan which details the methods and procedures that were used to build the frame. Design verification comes next with specifications and testing results. And the absolute final chapter tells of the project management process; the purchasing, analysis, deliverable dates, and scheduling. Any supplementary information mentioned in the body of this report is attached in the appendices.

11

2 Background

Through observations of vehicles at Battle Mountain, interviews with the sponsor, previous findings from the club, and additional background research, the team has investigated and defined the customer’s design needs and wants. Using these design inputs, a formal list of product specifications was developed. This section of the document details the research and technical background that led to the design specifications.

2.1 Geometry

To begin technical research, one of the main aspects analyzed was how the geometry of bicycle frames affect their handling qualities. This is important to account for as it affects the rider’s power output, safety, and comfort while riding the bike. Some of the main geometry factors affecting bicycle handling are trail, wheelbase, and weight distribution. The wheel size also plays an integral role in vehicle handling, as can component choice. The trail is the distance between where the line of the steering axis intersects the ground and where the tire intersects with the ground, as shown in Figure 1. Most standard bicycles have positive trail, meaning that the contact point between the wheel and the ground is behind where the steering axis intersects with the ground. The trail is determined by the head tube angle, which determines the steering axis, and the fork offset, which refers to the distance from hubs to steering axis.

Figure 1. Graphic showing fork offset and trail [1].

A larger trail causes a bike to feel more stable. In recumbent bicycles, the steering angle is smaller than that of a standard road or mountain bike frame. Some streamliner frames observed at Battle Mountain have a fork offset that places the fork behind the front wheel axle. This includes team Aerovelo’s bike, Eta Prime, shown in Figure 2, which holds the world speed record, as well as Primal 3, George Leone’s latest bike. When asked, the designers of Eta Prime stated this was due to spatial constraints with the drivetrain. In contrast, other streamliners, such as VeloX by the Delft and Amsterdam Team and Taurus by the Italian team Policumbent, have a fork that extends directly down to their axle without a second member offsetting the fork [2].

12

A standard bicycle has a head tube angle between 71.5-74.5° from horizontal. By increasing the fork offset (the distance from the wheel hubs to the steering axis), trail is decreased. Because of this, if bikes have a very shallow steering angle, they often have more fork offset to keep the balance. “Road bikes usually ranges from 40 to 55 mm [of trail] ... Motorcycles usually have 80 mm of trail… but can feel sluggish at slower speeds” [3]. The wheelbase is the horizontal distance between the front and rear axles of a bike. The longer the wheelbase, the more stable a bike feels and the easier it is to keep the bike traveling in the direction it is headed. The high speeds recorded at Battle Mountain require bikes to be stable at high speeds. A balance must be found between stability and maneuverability, which will be based heavily on dynamic modeling and physical verifications with testing.

Figure 2. Picture displaying Eta Prime’s fork offset.

In a streamlined recumbent bicycle, a rider’s position is as laid back as possible without compromising power [4]. While at Battle Mountain this year, every bicycle observed was in the recumbent position. The world record holding bike, Eta, has a recumbent seating position, as shown in Figure 3 [20]. The rider is given ample time to train to become accustomed to the non- standard so they can put out peak performance during the race. “Recumbents Figure 3. Eta with rider, showing the rider’s position in the hold all human powered speed records. frame [6]. Period!” [5]. Additional research performed on aerodynamics and ergonomics can be found in Appendix A. Due to the recumbent position, the bottom bracket location on streamliners seen at Battle Mountain is much higher than in a traditional road bike. Because of spatial constraints, many Battle Mountain bikes have been observed to be “short wheelbased”, meaning that the bottom bracket is positioned in front of the front wheel [7]. This positioning can be observed in Figure 4, on Primal 2, another HPV designed by George Leone. This causes bikes to ride less smoothly, but the compromise is rectified in other areas of the geometry to assure good handling characteristics.

13

Analysis can be performed regarding many different aspects of frame geometry, however due to the resources available and time constraints, the team will start with known and tested geometries. Consequently, the team will not have to begin from “ground zero” and can instead focus on creating a frame that is custom fit to the rider and as optimized as possible. The team plans to use dynamic modeling and physical testing to ensure that the model for the frame is a robust option. The wheel and head set choices are important considerations Figure 4. Primal 2’s drivetrain that also affect the frame’s geometry and structural integrity [8]. The and bottom bracket height in research regarding these components in detailed in Appendix B. relation to the wheels.

2.2 Material Selection

The material choice for the frame has a fundamental influence on every aspect of the vehicle design. This choice is based on a variety of factors including material properties, cost, and ease of manufacturing. The team’s decision-making process considered three materials that are commonly used in frame building: aluminum, chromoly steel, and carbon fiber. The primary properties analyzed were strength, manufacturability, ease of repair, and cost. Through evaluation of the three materials it was found chromoly steel was the best for the project. Chromoly is isotropic and easy to weld and machine with the resources available in the Mechanical Engineering shops. It can be easily repaired and is readily available for purchase. In addition, it has been extensively researched so its properties are well understood [9]. Analyses for carbon fiber and aluminum are detailed in Appendix C.

2.3 Safety and Loading Cases

The frame is the vehicle’s main structural element, so safety plays an integral role in its design. Since the IHPVA competition does not have rigorous safety standards, the design of the frame will be dictated by standards set by the team with help from department faculty and governing bodies such as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The safety requirements for the frame will involve the use of mandatory safety equipment like a roll hoop, helmet, and 5-point racing harness, shown in Table 1. Physical testing and finite element analysis (FEA) will also be required of the vehicle before it can run.

Table 1. Safety Equipment Regulations

Safety Equipment Required Governing Body Reference Roll Hoop ASME Appendix D Helmet ASME Appendix D Racing Harness SAE Baja Appendix D

14

Loading cases are an important part of the design of the vehicle. Unlike the ASME colligate competition, the IHPVA does not have frame loading requirements. Because of this, research needed to be done on the loading cases that would be appropriate for the vehicle. ASME’s loading cases were used as a starting point for the design loading. ASME requires all vehicles raced in competition to verify their roll hoop through physical load testing. The loads required by ASME are a vertical load of 600 lbf and a side loading of 300 lbf (see Appendix D). These loading cases were implemented at a time when the competition saw top speeds of approximately 50 mph. Comparing this to the speed that a human powered vehicle is designed for (roughly 70 mph), the kinetic energy would increase by a factor of 1.96. Therefore, the team designed the vehicle to support double the loads required by ASME – 1200 lbf vertically and 600 lbf laterally. In addition to passing internal regulations set by the team, the design must be consistent in abiding by Battle Mountain regulations (Appendix E). This includes vehicle requirements, course structure, and chase vehicle rules. The bike and rider will also adhere to applicable ASME HPV, Baja SAE, and Formula SAE safety standards and requirements. These standards can be found in Appendix D.

2.4 Observations from Battle Mountain

While at the Battle Mountain competition in 2018, many different bikes were observed and some of the teams were interviewed. The main designers of both Eta Prime and Wahoo, Aerovelo and Cal Poly alumni Larry Lem, respectively gave extensive information regarding different aspects of frame and vehicle design. Observations and notes regarding the vehicle’s frame are listed below and selected pictures of the vehicles present at the competition are shown in Appendix F. Notes from Eta: • Frame brace top and bottom • Beam element optimizer was used by Toronto • Torsional stiffness important between the wheels • Need stiffness at pedal input, loaded by pedaling forces at cranks (front of bike) • Front of bike loaded by pedaling force • Chain must not interfere with fork • Frame must be strong, but fairing protects rider a lot too • Frame designed around constraints, general, then seeing where need geometry • Bending load requires a lot of material to resist, brace with more than one member to reduce this (i.e. top and bottom) Notes from Wahoo: • Beware tire rub • Tie in fork to fairing (bearings) • Idea: have blocks to have rim hit first, before tire can hit fairing • Limit steering with hard stop (tabs off stem- idea) • Tack on tabs for steering, gradually reduce angle as rider gets used to bike • Some considerations for tubing frames: wall thickness, bending constraints

15

2.5 Patents

Table 2 below shows a list of patents that are related to the design, materials, and manufacturing processes that was used to develop the frame.

Table 2. Relevant Patents on Designs, Materials, and Manufacturing.

Patent Description Front Wheel Drive Recumbent Bicycle Specially designed to remain stiff under pedaling loads (Patent US7753388B2) to maximize drivetrain efficiency. Fitted recumbent bicycle frame building A design and manufacturing patent for recumbent process bicycles in particular. (Patent US5584494A) Wind-and rain-proof high-speed totally This is a patent related to the “fairing” that the frame will enclosed bicycle eventually be encapsulated. (Patent CN2412825Y) Streamlined bicycle design This patent relates the importance of having low-frontal (Patent US4411443A) area for the frame. It describes how this will influence the resistance (or drag) that the bike will experience. Recumbent Bicycle This patent describes the geometry and materials used (Patent US4541647A) for making a recumbent bicycle.

2.6 Handling Analysis

The handling characteristics of B the frame were analyzed using the Patterson Control Model [10]. The Z, z Patterson Control model is an analysis tool derived using dynamics applied to bicycle geometry h assuming small angles. The equations derived in the model relate a variety of geometry factors in the bicycle to control response. Figure 5 shows the geometry inputs to the  Y, y model. Appendix G details X, x P definitions of what each of the S P P variable parameters represent. F R The main outputs of the A Patterson Control Model are control T spring and sensitivity, both as a Figure 5. Visual representation of geometric parameters used in the function of vehicle speed. Control Patterson Control Model. spring represents “…the force feedback through the steering as a function of vehicle speed” [11]. The control spring is plotted against vehicle speed. From this plot the point where the control spring curve goes from positive to negative is the speed at which the bike goes from unstable to stable. The “… control sensitivity… represents the sensitivity of the roll response of the vehicle as a function of vehicle speed” [11]. The sensitivity describes how likely the bike is to roll over if a steering input is applied.

16

In Battle Mountain competition, the vehicle must be able to be started from a static start, with support provided by the team members for up to 15 meters [12]. Thus, the peak sensitivity for the frame must not be too high, or it will be extremely difficult for the rider to start the bike moving under their own power at low speeds. The frame must also have a control spring curve that passes through the x-axis at a low speed, so that it goes from unstable to stable before the bike is brought up to a higher, and thus more dangerous, speed. The frame is expected to reach speeds of over 60 mph, thus, the control spring curve at high speeds must be a steep slope so that the rider is able to easily ride in a straight line without compromising their safety and the steering is not “twitchy”. In addition, the sensitivity must also be low at high speeds, so the bike is unlikely to roll over and compromise rider safety. However, sensitivity cannot be too low at high speeds, or it will be difficult for the rider to change directions in the event of an unforeseen circumstance, such as a gust of wind. In order to get an idea of what values are “high” or “low” for the sensitivity and control spring values, past chassis that raced at Battle Mountain were measured and their geometry was put into a spreadsheet that calculates control spring and sensitivity plotted against vehicle speed. The team also reached out to the owners of the old chassis for physical descriptions of pros and cons their riders experienced. A list of information about the measured chassis, given to the team at a meeting with George Leone, is shown in Appendix H. One of the inputs to the Patterson Control Model is longitudinal radius of gyration. While all other values are determined as the bike is designed, this value cannot be known until the bike is built and the value is experimentally determined. Because of this, research was done to determine a radius of gyration value that would be comparable to the frame the team plans on designing. A report detailing testing done at Cal Poly on recumbents with various seat angles was used to determine a rough radius of gyration for the frame [13]. Table 3 summarizes the findings from the paper.

Table 3. Radius of Gyration for Various Seat Angles.

Frame Geometry Longitudinal Radius of Gyration (m) Vertical rider 0.5 Classic Road Bike (Diamond Frame) Rider 0.5 90° Seatback Angle Recumbent Rider 0.44 60° Seatback Angle Recumbent Rider 0.41 45° Seatback Angle Recumbent Rider 0.35 30° Seatback Angle Recumbent Rider 0.31

17

3 Objectives

The Cal Poly Human Powered Vehicle club rider needs a safe, structural, and aerodynamic vehicle frame in which to race at the IHPVA Speed Challenge Championships to compete for the American Collegiate Land Speed record. The frame required for the two-wheeled streamliner must have vastly different geometry and handling characteristics than trikes made by the club in the past, in order to reach speeds over 62 miles per hour. The primary responsibilities of this project are to design and fabricate the frame and fork, to specify the headset and the safety harness, and to design seat mounting. Additionally, the frame team is responsible for the safety of the rider which includes the roll hoop, safety harness, and impact foam padding to protect the rider in a crash.

3.1 Boundary Diagram

The boundary sketch for the frame is shown below in Figure 6. The black shows the parts of the vehicle that the frame is directly responsible for, and the other colors show the main subsystems that interface with the frame. Table 4 lists the different subsystems and their respective interactions with the frame. Figure 6. Boundary Diagram depicting main subsystems of the vehicle.

Table 4. Boundary Diagram Definitions. Subsystem Interface Fairing Frame and fairing both have input into frame connection design (number of connections, spacing, placement, type); frame must fit into fairing; low frontal area; frame must be as tight as possible in the front and at the roll hoop Steering Head tube sized according to chosen headset; frame defines steering angle; frame defines fork offset; frame supplies mounting points for steering limiters Rider Frame supports seat and decides frame connections; rider must fit in frame Ergonomics and be able to ride frame as a bike; frame must support the rider in normal and crash loading Drivetrain Frame must provide a location to weld the bottom bracket to, but frame defines bottom bracket height; the frame provides the structure to support a shaft for the mid drive; the fork must be sized to the hubs of drivetrain’s choosing; the frame provides all mounting points for the drivetrain components Wheels and Frame must include mounting for the braking system; brake defines cable Brakes routing, but frame must approve; frame defines axles with wheel’s input; frame must fit around wheel shroud; frame provides standard dropouts sized to wheel, hub, and axle

18

3.2 Customer Needs and Wants

In order to design a strong, efficient frame, the team identified several design goals. These were categorized as either a want or a need based on necessity and attainability. The goal of reaching a speed of at least 61.2 mph was defined as a need since the purpose of the project is to break the American Collegiate Record. Essential to this are the needs to be stable at speeds over 60 mph, be available to race at Battle Mountain 2019, and comply with race rules and safety standards. By considering one of the customers to be the rider, Josh, it was deemed necessary to add the needs of a custom frame tailored to him and his ability to produce a high-power output. Lastly, the frame must have mounting for other systems, a structural roll hoop, and low frontal area. Wants, though not necessary, will be accomplished to enhance the performance of the frame and bike. With the rider in mind the team added the want of comfort in order to boost speed during use. To improve the efficiency of the project, the wants of a frame that is cost-effective, lightweight, easy to manufacture, and easy to maintain were added. A complete list of needs and wants can be found in Appendix I.

3.3 Quality Function Deployment

With the customers and their needs and wants defined, their voice was brought into the planning process. This required answering the questions: who are they, what are their needs, what products are available to them now and how good are they, and how will the team meet their needs? This was done with the quality function deployment methodology, a structure that draws relationships between the answers to these questions - it describes the means by which the solution will be created. Using QFD and filling in a house of quality allowed the team to quantify the relationships between the customers, their needs and wants, potential specifications, and current products. This process made clear which wants and needs current products boast and how strongly connected wants and needs are to potential specifications. The results of the house of quality are technical importance ratings of each specification. The top two specifications were found to be structural integrity and speed – a combination for a superior frame. An attachment of the house of quality is in Appendix J and following is the table of specifications.

3.4 Specifications

The specifications for the project were determined based upon customer needs and wants and the background research. Using these specifications, the team was responsible for the designing, manufacturing and testing of the frame itself, the fork for the front wheel, and the harness system for rider safety. The technical specifications chosen are shown in Table 5 shown below.

19

Table 5. Engineering Specifications.

Specifications No. Description Target Tolerance Risk Compliance 1 Speed 61.3 mph + 10 mph H T 2 Frontal Area 475 in2 ± 75 in2 L A 3 Height of Center of 0.433 m + 0.12 m, M A, T Gravity Above Ground -0.03 m 4 Cost $1,500 ± $300 L A 5 Weight 40 lbs < 40 lbs L A, T 6 Instability Peak 10 mph ± 5 mph H A 7 High Speed < 8 rad/s/m +3 rad/s/m, -2 H A Sensitivity (at 60 mph) rad/s/m 8 Low Speed Sensitivity < 21 rad/s/m ± 2 rad/s/m H A 9 Control Spring < 10 mph < 10 mph M A Intersection with X Axis 10 Deflection Under 0.25 in < 0.25 in H A, T 1200 lbf Vertical Load to Roll Hoop 11 Deflection Under 600 0.25 in < 0.25 in H A, T lbf Side Load to Roll Hoop 12 Deflection of Bottom 0.20 in < 0.20 in H A Bracket 13 Radius of Gyration > 0.29 > 0.29 m M T

All specifications should either be minimized, maximized, or targeted and should be measurable or follow a pass-fail test. Speed will be measured using a speedometer when the bike is complete and being tested on a flat road both locally and at Battle Mountain. The specification of frontal area pertains to both the frontal area of the frame and of the completed bike. Both cost and weight (low risk specifications) are quantified upon completion of the frame. The instability peak refers to the velocity at which the highest sensitivity occurs, and the high-speed sensitivity corresponds to the bike’s sensitivity at 63 mph. Both specifications are measured theoretically using the Patterson Control model for analysis. Deflection under vertical and side loading are calculated theoretically using FEA and physically using a load frame. The deflection of the bottom bracket is measured theoretically using FEA. Lastly, the radius of gyration is tested using a jig available in the Cal Poly shops. Due to the inherent risks of racing for a land speed record, high speed is the first design specification that was considered “high-risk”. In order to mitigate this risk, design efforts were focused on the structural integrity of the frame, as well as implanting safety precautions such as helmets and roll-bars. The next risk in the specifications is stability. Since the rider will be fully enclosed, stability at high speed is a must. This required careful planning using existing models to optimize the stability to speed ratio.

20

4 Concept Design

In order to gain insight into the best solution, several different concepts for the fork and frame were developed that addressed the chosen specifications. The team first brainstormed ideas for the materials, components, and structural design for the frame of the bicycle. Using the ideas generated in the brainstorming phase, five iterations of different frame structures were sketched. Using these sketches and more ideas developed in brainstorming sessions, the team created small concept models that integrated the best structural and material options. The concept models provided a visual proof of concept and enabled the team to create several top designs for both the frame and fork. The last step was inputting the top design components into a weighted decision matrix and identifying the “winning” designs that made up the final concept. This concept was presented at the Preliminary Design Review presentation where the team received critical feedback and suggestions.

4.1 Concept Evaluation

The design process began with an idea generation phase. Using the knowledge gained from research, the team began solidifying different concepts for how to achieve the project’s specifications. Brain writing, drawing, and prototyping were some of the tools utilized to generate ideas. Concept models made with filler rod and craft materials were created to see on a small scale how certain concepts could work together. Photos and descriptions of the models can be found in Appendix K. The different concepts produced in the ideation phase were evaluated based upon their fulfillment of the requirements for the frame as well as their feasibility. Pugh matrices, in conjunction with less formal activities such as creating pros and cons lists were used to narrow down the initial concepts. The main functions that the frame needs to satisfy are rider protection from both a material standpoint and structural standpoint. These two functions were analyzed in the Pugh matrices to determine the best material and best frame geometry. The material Pugh matrix, shown in Table 6, analyzed frame material choices. The materials available were compared to that of George Leone’s bike Primal 2. Primal 2 used a steel tubing frame, so since steel was one of the materials considered, it was rated the same as Primal 2 in every category. Aluminum and Carbon Fiber are known to absorb more energy in a crash loading situation which gave them higher marks than steel. Both materials however are more prone to deforming under load and are less versatile at being adjusted after initial fabrication due to welding and layup characteristics. Aluminum is much softer than steel leading to its low marks in structural integrity but similar in fabrication processes to steel. Carbon fiber is much stiffer than steel by weight however is much harder to build with than either steel or aluminum. The Rider protection matrix, shown in Table 7, found side supports and impact foam to be features that led to increased safety in every category when compared to Primal 2. Roll hoops and frontal impact supports were already used in the design of Primal 2 and therefore were very similar to its design. A bottom support design was shown however to provide very little rider protection.

21

Table 6. Pugh matrix of Rider Protection that focuses on material selection.

Function: Protect Rider (Material) Concept Datum: Aluminum Steel Carbon Primal 2 Criteria

Impact Absorbent S + S + Deformation Resistant S – S – Roll hoop Manufacturing S S S – Structural Integrity S – S + Adaptability/ Adjustability S - S –

Table 7. Pugh matrix of Rider Protection that focuses on frame structure options.

Function: Protect Rider (Structure) Concept Datum: Side Bottom Roll hoop Frontal Impact Primal 2 Support Support Impact Foam Support

Criteria

Impact Absorbent S + – S S + Deformation Resistant S + – S S + Protects Internal Organs S + – S S + Protects Head S + – + S +

4.2 Initial Frame Concepts

The Pugh matrices provided visual support to help narrow down both material and component choices. The structure matrix suggested that the team keep the same components as the datum and add impact foam. These concepts were used to develop the top five concepts which are detailed in the following sections. While they vary in frame construction and bracing, all ideas contain a roll hoop, as rider safety is the number one concern in the team’s design.

22

4.2.1 Composite Monocoque Frame with Roll Hoop

The first idea considered, sketched in Figure 7, was a fully integrated frame and fairing (a monocoque). All of the bike’s structure and mounting points would be contained within the fairing shell, and thus the frame would also be made of composite material – likely carbon fiber and honeycomb core. This design would be safe for the rider assuming manufacturing is carried out correctly, but it leaves little ability to change any parts of the design once manufacturing has begun.

Figure 7. Carbon fiber monocoque design with roll hoop.

4.2.2 Steel Tubing Frame with Roll Hoop and Bottom Bracing

The next idea, sketched in Figure 8, utilized steel tubing instead of composite material. Round steel tubing would be used and would allow for ease of integration with standard bicycle geometry and components. One or two frame members would run under the rider, beginning from the bottom of the roll hoop and extending forward to the bottom bracket. This member would support the seat, pedaling loads, and any external impact loads. It would also dictate the bicycle’s geometry, such as wheelbase and steering angle.

Figure 8. Steel tubing design with roll hoop and bottom bracing.

23

4.2.3 Steel Tubing Frame with Roll Hoop, Bottom and Side Bracing

Another iteration of a frame constructed from steel, sketched in Figure 9, contained the same main elements as the idea directly above; however, it also contained structural members extending from the roll hoop around the sides of the rider and ending at the steer tube. This concept was considered to increase torsional stiffness and rigidity of the frame, and to better protect the rider in case of a crash.

Figure 9. Steel frame design with roll hoop, bottom, and side bracing.

4.2.4 Steel Tubing Frame with Roll Hoop and Limited Bottom Bracing

The frame sketched in Figure 10 shows the steel tubing design with side support tubing without the bottom bracing. This design utilized the side supports as the main structure. This reduces the weight of the frame since it does not include the bottom tube. The main considerations in this design were to make sure the rider’s legs could use their full range of motion, to ensure the structure could support the load cases, and to design the frame to be optimized in torsional resistance.

Figure 10. Design sketch of frame with roll hoop and limited bottom bracing.

24

4.2.5 Aluminum Frame with Roll Hoop, Side, and Bottom Bracing

The last concept, sketched in Figure 11, was an aluminum frame with a roll hoop, side, and bottom bracing. Although aluminum is lightweight, it would not offer ease in manufacturing and post-manufacturing adjustability because it must initially be heat treated. While the concept was going in the right direction by including three forms of bracing/support, it was evident that aluminum would be too difficult of a material to work with.

Figure 11. Design sketch of an aluminum frame with roll hoop, side, and bottom bracing.

4.3 Initial Fork Concepts

While the overall frame tubing and supports are a large portion of the project, the fork is also an integral subsystem. Due to the complexity and manufacturing challenges presented by the fork, three different concepts were developed. By focusing on the fork alone, the concepts were able to be developed independently of the frame tubing routing.

4.3.1 Standard Fork with Offset Plate

The first concept considered was a standard road bicycle fork with an offset plate. Most standard road bikes have about 40-50 mm of offset, and most of the forks for 650c wheels were found have 40mm of offset. Due to the fork offset’s impact on stability and handling, the team found that a larger fork offset would be advantageous for the bike’s dynamic handling (about 60mm). Thus, in order achieve the trail desired, the standard fork’s blades would be connected to the axles with a machined plate, as shown in Figure 12. This would increase the fork’s offset without having to manufacture a fork in-house. However, since the plate is the frame’s connection to the wheels, stiffness is a big issue to consider with this Figure 12. Sketch of design. Designing a plate such that it is light and extremely stiff to not allow flex at standard fork with the axles would be difficult, and the team foresaw this design being heavier than plate connecting other options. axle to fork blades.

25

4.3.2 Bent Fork Blades using Straight Tubing

Another option, shown in Figure 13, for achieving the desired fork offset was utilizing straight (not tapered) chromoly tubing as the fork material and a roller bender to put in a large radius. These tubes would be welded into a fork crown at the top and dropouts would be welded on at the bottom for connection to the axle. Then, a curved beam analysis could be performed as hand calculations or in FEA to ensure the forks would be able to support the frame as a standard fork would. The analysis of this design would have to be rigorous as the team needs to be sure that a custom- designed and custom-built fork will function the same as a standard fork. Safety and stiffness were high priorities with this concept. In addition, the tolerances and Figure 13. Sketch criticality of this component would make manufacture and jigging a challenge. of fork constructed from bent tubing. 4.3.3 Standard Fork Blades welded with Custom Offset

The last option considered, shown in Figure 14, was to use a standard fork kit to manufacture a fork with custom geometry. A fork kit is a set of tubes with standard radii, diameters, and wall thicknesses for frame builders, but that can be configured in different ways for each fabricator to choose his or her exact geometry. The team would cut and miter the tubes according to the final design and use the fork building jig available through the Bike Builders Club to accurately hold the fork while it is welded. The jig is capable of 0-100mm of offset, and the range of offsets the team envisions using is well within that range. This option was manufacturing Figure 14. Sketch intensive, but still used well-accepted standard components, and with the resources of standard fork available the team did not forecast the manufacturing to be unrealistic. blades with custom offset.

4.4 The Decision Process

Once a wide base of ideas had been generated, concept selection began. The team iterated upon the most favorable characteristics of potential frames found from the Pugh matrices and top five concepts to find ideal combinations of attributes for the frame. These combinations were then ranked against each other in a decision matrix. A decision matrix is a useful tool in the evaluation of an idea. First, a list of the criteria an idea needs to satisfy is created and a number from 1 to 5 is assigned to represent the weight of the importance of the criteria. Then, a column for the idea is added and a number from 1 to 5 is assigned to how well the idea accomplishes the criteria. Lastly, the two weights are multiplied, and the columns’ sum is calculated at the bottom. This allows a quantifiable way to determine which concept is the best. The final decision matrix for the frame is shown below in Table 8. Aluminum was eliminated from material choices for the frame because of its less favorable outcome from the Pugh matrix. Since any frame design combined with any fork design was a feasible option, the frame and fork matrices were analyzed separately. The final matrix for the fork is shown in Table 9.

26

Table 8. Final Weighted Decision Matrix for Frame. Based upon the criteria and weights considered, a frame constructed from steel tubing, including roll-over, side, bottom, and frontal support would be considered for PDR.

Options Steel with Roll Steel with Roll hoop and hoop, Side, Bottom Support, Bottom, and without Side or Carbon Non-Integrated Frontal Impact Frontal Impact Criteria Weight Monocoque Carbon Support Support Cost 2 2 4 1 2 4 8 5 10 Speed 4 4 16 4 16 3 12 4 16 Frontal Area 2 4 8 3 6 3 6 4 8 Vertical Loading 3 3 9 3 9 4 12 4 12 Side Loading 4 3 12 3 12 5 20 1 4 Frontal Loading 3 5 15 2 6 4 12 1 3 Protects Rider 5 5 25 4 20 5 25 2 10 Integration with All Components 5 2 10 2 10 4 20 4 20 Weight 2 4 8 4 8 2 4 3 6 Ease of Manufacturing 4 1 4 1 4 5 20 5 20 SUM: 111 93 139 109

Table 9. Final Weighted Decision Matrix for Fork. Based upon the criteria and weights considered, a fork constructed using standard fork components and welded with custom geometry would be considered for PDR.

Options Standard Fork with Custom Curved Bladed Standard Fork with Criteria Weight Offset Plate Fork Custom Offset Cost 1 1 1 4 4 3 3 Structure 2 4 8 3 6 4 8 Stiffness 2 2 4 2 4 4 8 Ease of integration 3 3 9 4 12 4 12 Ease of manufacture 4 4 16 3 12 3 12 Ability to hold tolerances 3 3 9 1 3 4 12 SUM: 47 41 55

4.5 Final Concept

The final concept presented at the Preliminary Design Review was a 4130 chromoly steel tubing frame that included a roll hoop as well as side, bottom, and frontal impact supports. It received the highest score in the weighted decision matrix, both overall and in significant criterion such as protecting the rider and being easy to manufacture. Utilizing steel as a construction material was more cost-effective than carbon fiber, while maintaining the ability to support the loading cases.

27

4.5.1 Description

The PDR concept was a recumbent bicycle frame with dimensions tailored to the rider’s geometry. Figure 15 shows the initial concept in CAD of the frame, and the locations of important aspects of the frame.

Figure 15. 3-D CAD Model of PDR concept of frame.

The frame was fabricated from steel tubing and included side bracing members, bottom support tubing, and a roll hoop. The extra frame bracing serves to increase stiffness and structural integrity of the frame, as well as protecting the rider in the event of a crash. Additionally, foam padding and soft cushioning were placed in areas where the rider may contact the frame. The fork would be fabricated from standard steel fork blades and a steer tube. It was welded using a frame building fork jig to set the custom geometry defined by the team’s design. The geometry of the frame is a function of many different constraints. The vehicle dynamics and handling were considered, as well as rider packaging and comfort, structural integrity, and integration with all other subsystems of the vehicle. Preliminary geometry analysis for handling characteristics and rider position were completed to support the PDR design. The rider for the vehicle was measured, and testing was performed to determine his ideal riding position. The handling characteristics were analyzed utilizing the Patterson Control Model. They were then integrated with spatial constraints that were determined during rider testing. Both tests are detailed in Section 4.4.4. Table 10 shows the geometry for the PDR frame design, based on inputs to the Patterson Control Model, visually shown in Figure 5. Appendix G gives physical descriptions for each of the variable parameters in the model listed below.

28

Table 10. Current Values for Frame Geometry.

Variable Value Units a 1.45 m b 0.847 m h 0.433 m kx 0.31 m beta 18 degrees s -0.06 m Rt 0.3085 m m 118 kg Rh 0.18 m

The frame was constructed from 4130 chromoly steel tubing and joined by tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding. Components and jigging materials were machined in-house utilizing manual or computer numeric control (CNC) machines, depending on the geometry and tolerances necessary. Moving forward from PDR with the steel frame concept, the remaining work lied in identifying the final values for specifications. CAD models provided proof that the design would function with the chosen dimensions. From there they were put into the Patterson Control Model to ensure that outputs match target values and are within tolerance.

4.5.2 Layout Models

The layout model that was created started with an analysis of the rider dimensions that were found during testing. The most important measurements gathered were the locations of the bottom bracket, seat, and the seat angle the rider preferred. Using the data, the team was able to create a line sketch using simple 2D line drawings. This 2D line sketch then served as a basis to create a 3D line sketch. The 3D line sketch was created after a mannequin of the rider had already been made by the club. Finally, when the team was satisfied with the 3D line sketch, the weldments feature on SolidWorks was used to extrude a 3D tubing profile around the 3D line sketch. This resulted in the 3D model presented in section 4.5.2.2.

4.5.2.1 Two-Dimensional CAD Model

Another tool utilized for preliminary analysis of the frame was building a two-dimensional SolidWorks model to check rider fit. Pictures and measurements taken during rider testing were scaled and put into a SolidWorks file. They were then overlaid with the initial frame dimensions found from handling analysis (see 4.5.4.2). All the inputs to the Patterson Control Model can be defined in two dimensions, so a two-dimensional model was the starting point for design constraints. Compromises were made between the ideal handling characteristics and physical constraints of the rider’s size and preferred riding position. Iterations were performed on both the CAD model and the Excel document for handling until a combination that satisfied both was found. A picture of the model built on top of the rider picture is shown below in Figure 16. The frame is shown in green, the wheels and angle definitions are shown in pink, and the lines defining the rider’s limbs are shown in grey. Construction lines (dotted lines) represent non-physical parameters (such as the wheelbase or the horizontal distance between rear axle and center of gravity). Solid lines represent actual frame members or bicycle components (such as the bottom

29

bracing or the wheels). Figure 17 shows the line sketches of the frame, frame constraints, and rider angles without the picture overlay. While only one picture of the rider can be displayed at a time, the rider angles were defined from pictures of the rider at 8 different leg positions. This allowed the team to design around the rider’s pedal circle and thigh circle to make sure there would be no clearance issues.

Figure 17. Two-Dimensional Line drawing, with rider Figure 16. Two-Dimensional Line drawing of the measurements shown in grey, frame shown in green, frame overlaid over pictures taken during rider center of gravity point shown in blue, and other testing, displays how the rider will fit into the bike. important non-frame dimensions shown in pink.

4.5.2.2 Three-Dimensional CAD Model

The 3D model created can be seen below in Figures 18. These models were preliminary in the fact that there were some components missing and measurements that lacked validation. The number of main members, their rough locations and sizes, and their angles were relatively well-placed; however, further validation with hand calculations and FEA analysis were necessary before finalizing the 3D CAD. The model still required integration with the fork and other subcomponents. Attachment points with drivetrain, fairing, and other components were all necessary and were completed after Preliminary Design Review but prior to the Critical Design Review.

Figure 18. Drawing view of the 3D profile of the frame. Important dimensions called out: roll hoop angle from vertical, wheelbase, and wheel outer diameter.

30

4.5.3 Concept Prototype

The concept that the team decided to demonstrate with the concept prototype was the roll hoop manufacturing process. The roll hoop being used in the vehicle would be made of round steel tubing with a relatively thin outer wall to save weight. This thin outer wall presented a challenge to manufacturing as the tubing tended to deform or crinkle during the bending process. There are many different methods that could be used to minimize this crumpling effect. However, the capabilities of the shops and the team budget limited the team to two primary options: cold working using a dedicated tubing bender and hot working using an oxy acetylene torch and a custom-made die. The team tested which of the two processes produced better results using round steel. Six different stock sizes (listed below) were tested, which were all cut to a length of 3 feet and bent in the center to 140 degrees (or as far as permitted). For the hot working, the tubes were bent using 3.5-inch radius bending dies specifically made for the outer diameter (OD) of the tubing. For the cold working, the tubes were bent using a 3.5-inch radius die and a bending jig. Initially the team planned to do visual inspections as well as out of round inspections with calipers, but after observing testing, it was found that the latter was no longer necessary. The results are detailed below in Table 11, and photos of the process and results can be found in Appendix L. Although the results of testing were helpful in the fact that they provided useful information, they were poor in terms of performance. None of the tubes bent met the visual inspection standards; crinkling, visual deformation, and inconsistent bend radius were observed. This was likely due to a combination of too tight of a bend radius, lack of structural support during bend, inconstant heating, and too thin of a side wall.

Table 11. Concept Prototype Test Results.

Visual Inspection Tubing Size Hot Working Cold Working 0.049” Wall Thickness Poor N/A 1” Outer Diameter 0.058” Wall Thickness N/A Unacceptable 1” Outer Diameter 0.035” Wall Thickness Unacceptable N/A 1.25” Outer Diameter 0.049” Wall Thickness Potentially Viable Unacceptable 1.25” Outer Diameter 0.058” Wall Thickness N/A N/A 1.25” Outer Diameter

From the testing performed on both hot and cold working thin tubing, it seemed very unlikely that the team would be able to manufacture the roll hoop in-house. None of the wall thicknesses nor methods attempted gave satisfactory results. To be sure, team members consulted other faculty that have experience bending thin tubing on and off campus. Jim Gerhardt, an experienced tube bender, was working with thin tubing for a frame he was building with the

31

team’s client, George Leone. Jim Gerhardt informed the team that he was unable to bend any tubing over 7/8” in diameter of 0.035” wall thickness anywhere on campus. Jim Gerhardt provided the team with a resource to contact to get the critical tube bending done professionally. Due to the large time investment and limited results that were anticipated from attempting to bend in-house, the team decided to get the critical bends done out of house for the frame. This allowed the team to work on manufacturing other important components, such as the frame jigs, while the tubing was being bent and then was ready for manufacturing once it was finished. The team planned to utilize benders on campus for smaller diameter tubing, and to perform all cutting, mitering, grinding, welding, machining, and assembling of the frame in-house.

4.5.4 Preliminary Analyses and Tests

In order to further prove that the preliminary design satisfied the previously set specifications, the team conducted a series of calculations in the Patterson Control Model. Further definition and background of the Patterson Control Model can be found in Section 4.5.4.2. Prior to entering all values into the model, values were acquired that stemmed from the rider’s measurements and riding preferences.

4.5.4.1 Rider Testing

In order to design the frame, several measurements and datums related to the rider’s body size and preference were needed. Collecting this data was done in two parts. First, measurements of the rider’s body were taken. This was done by identifying the rider’s joints with florescent stickers, measuring the distance between these joints, and then photographing the rider while on an adjustable bike jig. There were additional measurements taken by the rider model subsystem of the HPV Club in order to create a representative CAD model of the rider. This rider model was critical in creating the frame, as it was used to verify that there was no interference between the rider’s body and the frame. The second part of data collection was used to collect measurements on the rider’s preferences with regards to the fit of the frame. The measurements that the team was most concerned with were the bottom bracket position, seat angle, and relationship between the seat and the bottom bracket. This testing was done by fabricating independent seat and bottom bracket jigs that allowed the seat angle and bottom bracket position to be adjusted (see Figure 19). This allowed the team to develop datums that were used in the CAD models of the frame.

Figure 19. Rider testing setup with chosen rider, Josh.

32

4.5.4.2 Patterson Control Model

The bicycle dynamics, developed by William Patterson, were used to analyze the handling characteristics of the frame. Calculations were made using an excel document programed with the relationships derived by Mr. Patterson. The results are shown as plots of both control spring and sensitivity versus velocity. The Patterson Control Model is only valid for small steering angles, on two-wheeled inline vehicles, with front wheel steering systems. The frame will have a front- wheel steering system and two inline wheels. Since the vehicle will only have a possible turning angle of ± 5º, the Patterson Control Model is a valid model to use to analyze the dynamics of the vehicle. The values that the team wanted to attain were found through research from experienced Battle Mountain participants. George Leone, a participant and builder for Battle Mountain for over 30 years, has certain accepted values for some of the outputs that he uses when designing his frames. The team decided to follow these standards as they have years of proven results. In addition, as detailed in Section 2.7 Handling Analysis and Appendix G, old chassis were measured, and their geometries were analyzed using the same tools utilized for the new frame. The holistic opinion of each old chassis’ rider was considered in conjunction with their respective Patterson curves in order to give physical meanings to the Excel plots. The preliminary design plots are shown below in Figure 20 and Figure 21.

X- axis intersection point

Figure 20. Plot displaying Control Spring versus Speed for the current iteration of the frame geometry, overlaid over the old chassis’ measurements.

Peak sensitivity

Sensitivity around 60mph

Figure 21. Plot displaying Sensitivity versus Speed for the current iteration of the frame geometry, overlaid over the old chassis’ measurements. The main aspects of the handling dynamics analyzed for are shown circled on the plots in Figures 20 and 21. The x-axis intersection point on the control spring graph is where the vehicle goes from unstable to stable. This value was aimed to be at a low speed, so that the vehicle would become stable as quick as possible after launching. The peak sensitivity as well as the sensitivity at the vehicles target speed were also checked for. Sensitivity is a measure of how likely a vehicle is to roll given a steering input. This value was aimed to be minimized at all speeds. However,

33

due to the nature of the dynamics of the single-track recumbent, it will always have a peak. This peak was aimed to be kept under 24 rad/s/m at first, according to ASME standards. However, this was later changed in the final design as inputs from George and Carole Leone showed that this number was too high to be practical to ride. The sensitivity at roughly 60mph was aimed to be minimized as much as possible, to give the rider the most stable feeling ride at high speeds. This model was iterated and changed many times during the design process, so the final design values are shown in 5.3.1 Geometry: Handling Dynamics.

4.5.5 Risks, Challenges, and Unknowns

Several factors could present themselves that induce risks and challenges during manufacturing and testing of the frame, and during the racing of the bike. During manufacturing the team could have been exposed to shearing, cutting, and pinch points as well as hazardous materials. During testing and racing the rider will be subject to high accelerations, large forces, and hazardous weights. Because it was important to be aware of unknowns or what may occur, even if possibility is low, the team completed a design hazard checklist. The checklist can be found in Appendix M.

34

5 Final Design

The final design for the Human Powered Vehicle chassis is a recumbent bicycle with a full frame that encloses the rider and is fabricated with 4130 steel tubing. The frame is custom-built to the rider’s geometry and ergonomic preferences while maintaining a focus on safety and speed. The frame is built to protect the rider and includes a roll hoop to keep the rider safe during a rollover crash. In addition to the frame itself, also included in the scope of the senior project is the safety harness that the rider wears, the impact foam between the rider and the frame tubing, and the fork that connects the front wheel to the bike and provides ability for the bike to be steered.

5.1 Description

The final design for the frame and fork assembly is shown in the render, Figure 22, below.

Figure 22. Final frame and fork assembly design. The frame defines the vehicle’s geometry and supports all other components. Figure 23 shows the frame assembled with other subsystems and how they each interface with the frame.

Figure 23. Assembly of vehicle’s frame, wheels, seat, vision system, drivetrain, and fairing.

35

5.1.1 Frame

The frame assembly consists of the frame, the rear dropouts, seat mounting bosses, mid- drive mounting bosses, harness mounting tabs, the racing harness, and impact foam. Figure 24 shows the frame in grey, dropouts in pink, seat mounting bosses in green, mid-drive mounting bosses in orange, and harness mounting tabs in yellow.

Figure 24. Frame assembly.

5.1.1.1 Frame Weldment

A standard three view drawing of the frame weldment, displayed in Figure 25, shows some critical geometry constraints of the frame.

Figure 25. Standard 3-view of final frame design.

36

The frame weldment is constructed from 4130 round chromoly tubing. All wall thicknesses are .035”, except for the roll hoop, bottom bent support, and bottom bracket support, which are .049”. The .049” thick tubes are shown in blue below, in Figure 26.

Figure 26. Side view of frame. All .049” tubes are shown in blue, and all .035” tubes shown in grey.

The rear dropout spacing is set at 100mm for compatibility with the rear hub. The rear triangle includes two horizontal members which run parallel to the centerline of the bike to allow for disc brake mounting. The roll hoop is inclined at 15° off vertical to provide better coverage over the area where the rider is sitting. The seatback angle is set at 28° off horizontal, which was found to be the most comfortable position for the rider through testing. The two under seat members allow for seat and racing harness mountings to the frame. The wheelbase is about 1.44m, which gives the rider enough space back from the wheels but still works well in the bike’s overall handling dynamics. The side members include out of plane bends in order to give the rider’s legs clearance during his full pedal circle, without increasing the bike’s frontal area.

5.1.1.2 Safety

The Speed Challenge is conducted by the IHPVA, which requires all riders to be restrained in their vehicle. When selecting a harness, the team referenced the Baja SAE safety standards [19]. Baja requires riders to wear a five-point safety harness that utilizes a latch mechanism, is made of polyester, has an SFI 16.1 or 16.5 safety rating, and whose shoulder belts use the wraparound mounting method. These requirements were met with the chosen harness: The G- FORCE Latch and Link Individual Shoulder Harness. The harness attaches to the frame at the locations shown in Figure 27. As required by Baja, the shoulder belts are mounted using the wraparound method and angled downward from the shoulders in order to properly restrain the rider. The lap belts come over his waist and wrap around the parallel tubes of the bottom support. The antisubmarine belt comes down between the rider’s legs and bolts into the mounting tabs welded onto the bottom support.

Figure 27. Frame schematic showing mounting locations for harness.

37

To further increase rider safety and comfort, the team decided to implement impact foam throughout the frame. Ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) foam was used because it is lightweight, absorbent, and moldable by heat. Figure 28 shows where impact foam is used. Along the side support members and inside the roll hoop, panels of foam were inserted. These panels include a fiberglass layup in order to stiffen the foam and distribute the load during impact. The panels attach to the side support using hook and loop, industrial strength Velcro that wrap around the top and bottom of the side supports.

Figure 28. Frame schematic showing locations where impact foam will be used. 5.1.1.3 Bosses and Tabs

To mount various components on a round tubing frame securely, both bosses and tabs were used. Bosses, which weld into predrilled holes in the frame, were used to mount the mid- drive and the seat, and tabs were used to mount the racing harness. The locations for mounting points are shown in Figure 29, with mid-drive mounts shown in orange, seat mounts shown in yellow, and harness mounts shown in red.

Figure 29. Overlay of frame with picture of rider, Josh, in testing jig set at final seat back angle and bottom bracket location.

38

5.1.1.4 Rear Dropouts

Dropouts, which connect the wheels and hubs to the frame, were designed to interface with the vehicle’s custom hubs. The rear triangle tubes were mitered and welded to the dropouts in the frame jig, which set the dropout spacing for the hub. The solid model of the design of the rear dropouts is shown in Figure 30 and a test fit with the hub spacer and machined dropout is shown in Figure 31.

Figure 30. Test fit of Figure 31. Solid model of hub spacer and rear rear dropout. dropouts. 5.1.2 Fork

The fork assembly consists of the fork blades, the front dropouts, the steer tube, the head tube, and the headset. In addition, the fork has two threaded bosses welded into one fork blade to allow a chain tensioner to be mounted for drivetrain. Figure 32 shows the initial, planned design for the fork blades in grey, dropouts in pink, and steer tube in turquoise. The fork initially had an asymmetric design to allow for chain clearance with drive train. However, once the CAD model for the fork blades was refined based upon the actual fork blades themselves, it was discovered that an asymmetrical fork was not needed. Figure 33 shows the final fork CAD model. The fork offset and head tube angle were set using optimization with the Patterson Control Model, and the dropout spacing was set based upon the vehicle’s custom front hub (Figure 33). The offset and head tube angle were kept the same when the fork blades design was changed. The hole locations for the bosses were set based upon the fork tensioner’s mount geometry.

Figure 32. Solid model of final fork assembly. Figure 33. Front and side views of final fork assembly.

39

5.1.2.1 Fork Blades

The fork blades were sourced from Nova Cycles, an online frame building supply website, and welded in house. The blades specified are 25mm Road Unicrown Cyclocross fork blades (Figure 34). Unicrown refers to the fact that they are unmitered fork blades and cyclocross refers to a heavier wall thickness compared to typical road fork blades. These blades were chosen because the bike will be seeing higher loads than a standard road bike, with a front wheel drive system and fairing, in addition to higher speeds. The blades were custom mitered in house to account for the fork’s custom geometry. Holes were drilled near the bottom of the left fork blade and bosses inserted to mount a chain tensioner. The blades chosen are designed for mounting disc brake tabs, and thus have an increased wall thickness near the bottom. This gave the team confidence that drilling and using bosses to mount the chain tensioner would not impact the rigidity of the fork. Figure 34. Fork blades from Nova Cycles. 5.1.2.2 Headset

A zero-stack headset was chosen for the frame (Figure 35). The headset consists of the bearing system that allows the fork to rotate in the head tube and thus steer the bike. A zero-stack headset offers a low profile spacing outside of the head tube and comes with larger bearings than a standard headset. Because the bearings are larger, they are designed to withstand more force and are housed in a larger diameter head tube. Since the bike will be seeing higher than normal loading cases, the zero-stack headset was chosen. In Figure 35. Headset chosen to be addition, since many of the frame tubes connect to the head tube, used with the fork assembly. the larger diameter head tube was advantageous for weldability.

Figure 36. Internal features of a threadless headset.

40

5.1.2.3 Steer Tube and Head Tube

The steerer and head tube chosen were sized around the headset. The steer tube, part of the fork, was inserted through the inner races of the bearings of the headset, shown in Figure 36 in yellow. The head tube surrounds the whole assembly, and is the component that the bearings are pressed into, shown in Figure 35 in red. The head tube is stationary and welded to the main frame. The steerer can turn inside the head tube because of the head set bearings, and thus steers the bike. A 1-1/8” straight steerer was selected, as it was recommended to the team at PDR that a tapered steerer would be too oversized for the loads the vehicle would be seeing. Tapered steerers are commonly seen on mountain bikes with suspension, and since the Human Powered Vehicle will be raced on the road it will see very little impact load. A 44mm ID head tube was also selected, providing plenty of weld area for the frame. The steerer and head tube chosen are shown below in Figure 37.

Figure 37. Left, HT2010, 44mm ID 130mm long. Right, 1-1/8” steerer.

5.1.2.4 Front Dropouts

The front dropouts were designed to interface with the vehicle’s custom front hub. The fork blades are slotted, and the dropouts were welded into the blades using the fork jig, which sets the dropout spacing for the hub. The solid model of the design of the front dropouts is shown below in Figure 38.

Figure 38. Front and side views of the front dropouts.

5.1.3 Frame Jigs

The complex geometry of the frame required jigging to ensure that the final geometry of the bike would conform to specifications. The use of the jigs is detailed in the manufacturing plan, in 6.3 Assembly, but their overall designs are presented here.

41

5.1.3.1 First Stage Frame Jig

The first stage frame jig set most of the critical locations for frame members. A side and an isometric view of the jig is shown below in Figure 39 and 40, respectively.

Figure 39. First stage frame jig, side view.

Figure 40. First stage frame jig, isometric view.

Less critical geometry that was not set by the frame jig was set using angle gauges, levels, and other similar tools. Below is a list of the geometry aspects that the first stage frame jig sets. • Distance from rear hub to roll hoop • Rear dropout spacing • Height and distance from centerline of top side support tube at critical fairing clearance location • Height and distance from centerline of middle side support tube at critical rider leg clearance location • Head tube angle, height, and distance from roll hoop • Bottom bracket height and distance from roll hoop • Mid-drive truss hole locations for mid-drive plate mounting • Fairing connection height

42

5.1.3.2 Second Stage Frame Jig

The second stage frame jig was used once the top part of the bike had been mostly fabricated. It elevated the frame high enough to test fit wheels and hubs into the frame and allowed the bottom members to be added. Figure 41 shows the second stage frame jig assembly model.

Figure 41. Second stage frame jig model.

The second stage frame jig allowed for the following members to be set: • Bottom member level to ground and fit between head tube and harness mount member • Seat mounting members angle checked • Test fit of wheels with rear triangle and fork in front of frame

5.2 Functionality

The overall function of the frame is to provide structure and form to the vehicle and protect the rider in the event of a crash. The frame shall protect the rider by taking the impact loading and deforming as little as possible in critical areas near the rider. This is accomplished with the robust design that the team developed with an extensive truss system, both side and bottom support members, a roll hoop, and impact foam. The side members, which include trusses to increase rigidity, will protect the rider if the bike tips over or crashes. The bottom members, which the seat attaches to, will support the entire weight of the rider. In the event of a tip over or crash, the rider’s head is protected by the roll hoop. Another critical function of the frame is to integrate other components and subsystems of the bike. While the team designed for several of its own connections, it had to be ensured that mounting designed by other subsystem teams would be possible on the frame. Locational connection to the fairing is accomplished with the fairing cantilever support that extends from the front of the frame. In addition, various metal tabs were welded onto the frame to secure the fairing onto the frame. Integration with the rear and front wheels and hubs is accomplished with the rear and front dropouts. The dropout faces have slots that allow the hubs to slide into their correct position and are concentric with the hole to bolt through the dropouts. The designs for both dropouts were validated with Philwood Hubs, the company that produces the custom hubs the bike is using this year. The drivetrain system is mounted between specific truss members designed for that purpose. The bottom bracket shell is welded into the frame, and the crank system and bottom bracket are mounted in and off the shell. The braking system is mounted on horizontal rear triangle members also designed for that purpose. The handlebars and steering system are mounted onto the steerer, and the seat mounted in the seat mount bosses in the frame. The vision system is mounted non-permanently (with snaps for ease of removal) between the two top side supports of the frame so the rider has a clear view of the screens.

43

The main function of the fork subsystem is to connect the front wheel to the frame and provide steering capability for the bike. Steering is made possible by the headset, which fits inside of the head tube and rotates on bearings in the headset. The steer tube, or steerer, is welded to the fork blades and fits through the inner diameter of the headset bearings. The fork blades then fit around and connect to the wheel via the front dropouts. Lastly, the function of the jigs was to allow the team to manufacture the frame with as much accuracy as possible, while providing the opportunity to mitigate any issues that may arise. It ensured that critical distances, heights, and angles were met. Two stages of the frame jig allowed the team to build upon smaller components first and then to add in larger components.

5.3 Validation

Due to the high speeds the frame is expected to see, extensive validation was performed on the design. A mix of computer simulations and models, as well as in-person physical testing, was employed to ensure that the bike was designed with as much information the team could acquire. Using the engineering specifications from Table 5 as a guide, the team made purposeful decisions for geometry and material selection of the final design.

5.3.1 Geometry: Handling Dynamics

The theoretical center of gravity of the vehicle had to be estimated before other handling qualities could be analyzed. A standard estimation for height of center of gravity was used. The center of gravity was approximated at the height of the rider’s stomach. This approximation was approved for use by Professor John Fabijanic, who teaches a single-track vehicle dynamics class at Cal Poly. Figure 42 shows the approximated center of gravity used for handling calculations, denoted with a red star.

Figure 42. Approximation for center of gravity, shown with red star.

44

In order to find the most optimal handling characteristics possible within the physical constraints of the rider, the geometric inputs from the PDR design were iterated on until they fell within specifications. Figure 43 and Figure 44 show a comparison of the control spring and sensitivity, respectively, from PDR to the final geometry the bike was fabricated based upon.

X-axis intersection point

Figure 43. Control Spring v. Speed plot for the frame’s handling characteristics, showing the PDR and CDR geometries.

Sensitivity Peak

Sensitivity around 60mph

Figure 44. Sensitivity v. Speed plot for the frame’s handling characteristics, showing the PDR and CDR geometries.

Since PDR, the main aspects of geometry that were able to be iterated on were the head tube angle, fork offset, and handlebar radius. Other characteristic parameters, such as wheelbase or wheel radius, were not able to be changed as they are dependent on the rider’s height, other subsystem components, or various other fixed constraints. One important change to the model was an approximation for tiller steering that was incorporated to make the model more accurate for recumbent bicycles. The derivation for this approximation is shown in Appendix Y. Due to the large difference in geometry between the steering set up for a recumbent bicycle and a standard diamond frame, the handlebar radius input

45

to the Patterson Model can be approximated as the vehicle’s stem length. This was incorporated into the final dynamic modeling of the frame geometry. The control spring plot was analyzed primarily for its x-axis intersection point and its slope (shown in Figure 43). The control spring was able to be stiffened (resulting in a steeper sloped graph), which would allow the bike to need more of a steering input to give the same response. This is advantageous at higher speeds, as small, unintentional movements by the rider will have less of an impact on the bike’s direction of travel. Where the control spring crosses the x-axis is the speed at which the bike will go from unstable to stable. This is still at a relatively low speed, meaning the rider will spend most of his riding time in the stable region. The sensitivity plot was analyzed for its sensitivity values at both low speeds (starting – 15mph) and high speeds (60mph), as seen in Figure 44. The highest value of sensitivity the plot reaches is 19.1 rad/s/m (a measure of how quick the bike will want to continue a turn). A value of 20 rad/s/m for peak sensitivity was set forward by George Leone as the maximum value that bike designers would want to have to keep the bike within a ridable range. In addition, the peak sensitivity of the bike is reached around 12 mph, so the vehicle will be decreasing in sensitivity as the speed increases for most of the run. The sensitivity at 60 mph, the target speed for the bike, is 5.7 rad/s/m. This value is comparable to the geometry of other recumbents that have been successfully raced at high speeds (50-75 mph). A summary of some of the parameters analyzed in the handling model are shown in Table 12. Since the values for the proposed geometry either fall within or close to the values for proven, successful recumbents, the team is confident that the bike will be ridable and comfortable at both low and high speeds. Table 13 shows the final values for all Patterson Control Model inputs.

Table 12. Final Geometry comparison to target values and proven vehicles

Specification Target Final Primal 2 Primal 1 Zeta Geometry with 650c wheels Peak Sensitivity Less than 19.1 16 18.2 17 [rad/s/m] 20 Sensitivity at 60 Less than 7 5.7 4.5 2.2 5.9 mph [rad/s/m] Control Spring x- Less than 6.5 6.7 5 7.5 intercept [mph] 10

Table 13. Final values for Patterson Control Model inputs for frame geometry

Variable Value Units a 1.43 m b 0.847 m h 0.433 m kx 0.31 m beta 17 degrees s -0.06 m Rt 0.3085 m m 118 kg Rh 0.19 m

46

5.3.2 Geometry: Frontal Area

With aerodynamic drag being the largest barrier to top speed, the frontal area of the vehicle and frame are critical. Early in the design process, the fairing subsystem requested that the frame meet a frontal area requirement of 475 in2. However, this value was set before a rider was chosen. The team was not able to meet this requirement because the chosen rider is larger than anticipated. However, since the bike must be built to fit the rider, it is impossible for the frame to meet the initial specification. Not passing this specification does not have an impact on safety or functionality of the vehicle, and the fairing team has since revised their requirements. The frame has a frontal area of approximately 540 in2 when evaluated using the SolidWorks model. This value was accepted by the fairing team.

5.3.3 Geometry: Physical Fit Tests

To solidify the final geometry of the rider in the bike, a more robust rider testing jig was created. The second rider testing jig was able to set the Josh’s preferred seatback angle and bottom bracket location, while allowing him to pedal under load and feel stable and secure on the jig. Figure 45 shows Josh in his final preferred location on the rider testing jig. The measurements of components on the rider testing jig were then converted to locations on the frame’s solid model and incorporated into the final design.

Figure 45. Josh in his final preferred position on second rider testing jig.

Once the rider’s position was firmly set, the team needed to verify that the solid model of the frame was accurate to the size of the rider in real life. Physical gauges that could be set to varying distances were used to measure the rider at areas of concern, such as between his legs or around his shoulders. The rider’s physical dimensions were then verified against the frame CAD to ensure the designed frame would fit around the rider once it was built. Figure 46 shows the physical gauges around the rider to verify clearances. A detailed list of measured quantities with the second rider testing jig is detailed in Appendix R.

47

Figure 46. Testing with physical gauges around potential pinch or hazard points of the rider with frame or drivetrain.

5.3.4 Material Selection: Hand Calculations

While the bike was primarily analyzed with Finite Element Analysis (FEA) because of its complex geometry, it was necessary to verify that the values returned in FEA were true and accurate. To do this the team approached the bottom bracket and bottom bracket support with two simplifications: as a curved, cantilever beam in bending and as a straight, cantilever beam in bending. A single, vertical load was placed coming down on the support and simulated the same scenario in Ansys. Downward deflection was calculated in both and the final values were very similar, confirming the validity of the FEA. These hand calculations and Ansys simulation and result can be found in Appendix U.

5.3.5 Material Selection: Finite Element Analysis

The following section discusses the FEA simulations and results that were used to determine the final design of the bike. Table 14 is a summary of the three loading cases, target values, resultant values, and whether the test was passed or failed. Table 15 shows the constraints used in the FEA modeling of the three loading cases.

Table 14. Summary of FEA Loading Cases and Results.

Loading Case Target Value Result Value Pass/Fail Vertical Deflection 0.236 in 0.0425 in Pass Side Deflection 0.236 in 0.169 in Pass Pedaling Input 0.197 in 0.098 in Pass Deflection

48

Table 15. Constraints used for loading cases in FEA.

Headset Pin Rear Triangle Rear Triangle Loading Case Restraint Pin Restraint Fully Fixed Frame Vertical X X Deflection Frame Side X X Deflection Frame Pedaling X X Input Deflection 600 lbf Testing X Side Load 1200 lbf Testing X Top Load

In the specifications table (Table 5), there are three deflection related requirements. The first required specification is the vertical deflection of the roll hoop. In order to meet the specification, the bar must deflect less than 6mm when loaded with 5350 N at 12 from vertical per the ASME crash load specification. After solving the model in FEA, the maximum deflection of the frame is around 0.0425 inches in the vertical direction. Since the engineering specification from Table 5 requires the value to be less than 0.236 inches of deflection, the team can safely say that the frame passes this test. The model setup and results can be seen in Appendix V. The next loading scenario modeled was the side loading that could be experienced during a lateral crash. The load was applied to the side members and the side of the roll hoop of the bike frame to best approximate the distribution of the impact that would be seen in the event of a tip- over. Doubling ASME specifications, a load of 2700 N was distributed to the members applied in the lateral direction, as shown in Appendix W. The results from the Ansys simulation show that the top and middle member each deflect in the y-direction. Focusing on the critical areas, such as the rider’s shoulder and torso area, the deformation of the frame due to the load applied was measured. The side that has the load applied directly to it deflects roughly 0.472 inches in the negative direction, while the opposite side of the frame deflects 0.303 inches in the negative direction, as shown in Appendix W. Using the difference of these two values yields the relative deformation in relation to the centerline of the bike, which was calculated to be approximately 0.169 inches. Table 5 specifies that the deflection due to this loading case must be less than 0.236 inches, which the design satisfies. The last specification tested using FEA was the deflection of the bottom bracket due to pedal input from the rider. Per the engineering specifications provided by the Drivetrain Team, the deflection of the bottom bracket is allowed at most 0.197 inches. The model was set up with each of the torques, moments, and chain forces calculated and input the necessary boundary conditions as shown in Appendix X. After running the simulation in Ansys, the maximum deflection of the bottom bracket in the y-direction was calculated to be approximately 0.098 inches as shown in Appendix X.

5.3.6 Material Selection: Weight

The weight of the frame is another critical specification of the vehicle. The initial goal for the weight of the frame was 40 pounds or less; this weight includes the frame weldment and the fork. Analyzing these components in SolidWorks, the predicted weight of the vehicle was found to be 24.88 lbs.

49

5.4 Safety, Maintenance, Repair Considerations

Safety considerations of the frame followed a risk assessment formatting set by the Human Powered Vehicle club safety officer. This risk assessment technique involved creating a list of possible failures and incidents that would endanger the rider. Next, these failure modes were analyzed based on severity and predicted probability using a risk assessment matrix. The team then mitigated these risks through careful design and analysis of the vehicle frame. Finally, these failure modes were analyzed again using the same risk assessment technique to verify that the mitigation efforts have brought the risk to an acceptable level. This process was completed during the design of the vehicle and the results and analysis can be seen in Appendix S. Maintenance of the vehicle frame is not a very involved process. With the frame being composed of the main weldment, the fork, steering system, and racing harness, there is little that will require maintaining over the short lifetime that the vehicle is designed for. The first level of preventative maintenance will involve painting the vehicle’s frame in order to prevent rust from forming. This will be done using powder coating or conventional painting depending on the price of the procedures. Maintenance regarding the fork assembly will be accomplished by replacing head tube components and bearings when necessary. The bearings and seals will be installed with waterproof grease to prevent rust and dirt entering the headset. The racing harness will be replaced when the certification expires. Repair of the vehicle was only lightly considered while designing the frame for the club. Because the project only involves making one frame for the vehicle, which is of extremely high tolerance and complex weldment, the likelihood of being able to execute a safe repair in the event of a crash is somewhat unlikely. If a repair was deemed necessary and safe, the use of chromoly steel in the manufacture of the vehicle allows the team to be able to repair the vehicle in the using standard welding and steel bending techniques. It is important to note that in the event of a crash that would require welding or bending of the vehicle frame, there would be an extreme amount of scrutiny involved in deciding how or if the team should repair the vehicle frame. In order to race at the speeds that the vehicle is expected to be capable of, there is a huge amount of geometric precision required of frame components. The team is aware of this fact, and the decision to repair the vehicle would be made on a case by case basis using input of club safety officers, George Leone, the rider, and the University. During the design process the team compiled a list of hazards that the team or rider could experience during manufacturing, testing, or at the competition. By detailing these activities and scenarios ahead of time, the team was much more aware and cautious when carrying actions out. This design hazard checklist can be found in Appendix M. In addition, the team wanted to be prepared for things that could go wrong with the frame. By creating a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), the team explored all things that could fail, and the causes and effects of those failures. With the analysis complete, the failures were then ranked according to the possibility of them occurring, how detectable the failure would be, and how severe the failure would be. These rankings direct the team to which failures to pay the most attention to and approach with the most considerations. The FMEA table can be found in Appendix S.

5.5 Summary of Cost Analysis

The cost of the chassis was broken down into 6 main categories: the frame, the fork, the frame jigs, the fork jig, materials for testing, and tooling. Overall, the cost of the project was about $2,000. The team utilized discounts, donations, and sponsorships wherever possible to keep cost low. Due to the extremely high number of components in the system, the frame came out to be about $500 over budget. The team however is confident that they will be able to fundraise the

50

difference. A summary by category of the cost is shown below in Table 16, and a complete list is shown in Appendix O. Table 16. Summary cost analysis by subsystem of Frame

Category Cost Frame $900.17 Fork $176.39 Frame Jigging $256.61 Fork Jigging $0.00 Testing $415.50 Tooling $223.04 Total $1,971.71

51

6 Manufacturing

The manufacturing of the Human Powered Vehicle Chassis included predominately machine tool processes performed on metal, though some composites parts were made. Due to the extent of the parts that were made, the manufacturing plan is broken down by process, with the parts made with that process are listed within. Because the vehicle is custom fit to one rider, nearly all components are custom. The team completed most of the machining, welding, and bending in house, with a few parts made out-of-house by the team’s sponsor, Advance Tube.

6.1 Procurement

Stock procurement for the frame and jigging came from a mix of online and in person purchases. Frame specific components, such as the head tube and fork blades, were purchased from online frame building suppliers. Chromoly steel tubing (4130) for the frame itself was purchased from Aircraft Spruce. Frame jigging materials, such as standard round stock or plate, was purchased in person from Industrial Metal Supply. A complete list of where each component was sourced from and the cost associated is shown in Appendix O.

6.2 Manufacturing

In order to organize for manufacturing season, the parts to be made were organized into four general categories: Manual Machining, CNC Machining, Bending/ Grinding/ Welding, and Composites. The parts totals are as follows: Manual Machining - 36 CNC Machining - 10 Bend/ Grind/ Weld - 75 Composites - 20. In total, there were 141 parts to be made. This manufacturing plan further breaks down those sections and gives detailed information on non-standard processes the team carried out to manufacture the chassis. A section on the custom parts fabricated out of house is also included. A complete list of each component made is shown in Appendix P.

6.2.1 Manual Mill

A list of parts utilizing the manual mill is shown below. • 04-A03-001-JIG_BOTTOM • 04-A03-001-JIG_PILLAR • 04-A03-014-JIGPILLARPLATE • 04-A03-016-PILLAR_BASE • 04-A03-002-TUBE_BLOCK_0.875_BOTTOM • 04-A03-002-TUBE_BLOCK_1.25_BOTTOM • 04-A04-003-CENTER_SUPPORT Standard milling practice was observed and end mills, drill bits, and taps were used where required. Dial indicators were employed to ensure squareness for all parts, as well as edge finders to ensure precise locational tolerances. Layout fluid, digital calipers, spring calipers, rulers, and squares were used for marking of large parts. Round parts were held in a rotary vice and edge found to ensure perpendicularity of holes where required. All parts were test fit as needed at each critical stage to ensure the jig functioned as it should.

52

For the jig base, because the part was so long, two vices were squared at either end of the table, as seen is Figure 47. The base was moved as needed to access all the holes without crashing the mill and re-indicated after each set up change.

Figure 47. Set up of the Jig Base on the manual Bridgeport.

6.2.2 Manual Lathe

A list of parts utilizing the manual lathe is shown below. • 04-A01-005-SEATBOSS; 04-A01-007-SEATBOSSLONG • 04-A01-004-MIDDRIVEBOSS • 04-A03-011-DUMMYFRONTAXLE • 04-A03-004-BB_PLUG • 04-A03-007-CONICAL_PLUG • 04-A03-010-DUMMYREARHUB • 04-A03-006-HEAD_TUBE_MOUNT • 04-A03-006-HEAD_TUBE_MOUNT_SPACER • 04-A03-009-MID_DRIVE_SPACER • 04-A04-005-ROLL_BAR_PLUG2 Standard turning practice was observed and right, left, or neutral tools were used where needed, as well as drill bits and taps. Tap guides were used for all tapped holes to ensure straight threads. Micrometers were employed to ensure precise tolerances and all parts were test fit as needed at each critical stage to ensure the jig functioned as it should.

6.2.3 CNC Mill

A list of parts utilizing the CNC mill is shown below. • 04-A01-002-REARDROPOUTS • 04-A02-003-FRONTDROPOUTS

53

Due to the difficult geometry and high tolerances needed, certain parts were elected to be made on a computer numerically controlled (CNC) mill. Both the front and rear dropouts are custom to the hubs of the vehicle and required geometry that was complex enough it would be simpler to make utilizing a CNC. A CNC’s repeatability and ability to perform complex tool paths very difficult to execute on the manual mill made it a viable choice for the chassis’ dropouts. Soft jaws were made to hold the non-square parts, such as the rear dropouts shown in Figure 48 and the front dropouts in Figure 49. All computer aided manufacturing (CAM) was done in Fusion 360 and posted using general HAAS G-Code to transfer to the machine. A tool setting probe and spindle probe were used to set offsets and location the parts. Once the code was proved, many more Figure 48. First operation of rear dropouts in softjaws on the VF3, a CNC mill. components could be run with vastly less time investment. An example set up sheet showing the tools used and feeds and speeds is shown in Appendix Q.

Figure 49. Second operation of front dropouts in softjaws on the Minimill.

6.2.4 Water Jet

A list of parts utilizing the water jet is shown below. • 04-A03-014-JIGPILLARPLATE • 04-A03-016-PILLAR_BASE • 04-A03-003-FRONT_PLATE • 04-A01-006-HARNESSTABS • 04-A03-008-TOP_PLATE The water jet was utilized for cutting profiles of flat parts. Cut sheets were created using the stock dimensions of plate to be used. All hole locations were set by the water jet, but the holes themselves were undersized and drilled out to account for the size tolerance of the machine. All flat plate profiles were water jet cut, and the pieces were post machined as necessary. Enough stock was purchased such that the water jet was comfortably able to cut the profiles and still clamp the stock down, as seen in Figure 50.

54

Figure 50. Top and Front plates being cut on the water jet.

6.2.5 Cutting and Grinding

Nearly all parts that were manufactured in house utilized saws, grinders, sanders, or wire wheels to help rough cut or finish the parts. A variety of saws, such as abrasive saws, band saws, and toothed saws were used to cut stock into manageable sizes. Wire wheels and grinders were used to deburr and clean up parts. Many of the mitered parts were ground close to fit on the bench grinders. Angle grinders were used to rough cut many tubes, as seen in Figure 51.

6.2.6 Bending

A list of parts that bent in house are shown below. • 04-A01-001-FRAME-BottomMemberBent • 04-A01-001-FRAME-BentTrussRight • 04-A01-001-FRAME-ShoulderTrussSupportRight Figure 51. Keyanna Henderson using an angle grinder to cut a jig • 04-A01-001-FRAME-BentTrussLeft piece. • 04-A01-001-FRAME-ShoulderTrussSupportLeft • 04-A01-001-FRAME-MidDriveTrussRight • 04-A01-001-FRAME-MidDriveTrussLeft

All single plane bends on tubing of 1” OD or smaller were bent in house. A die of radius 4” was used, on a manual hydraulic tubing bender, as seen in Figure 52. Each tube was sized such that the minimum straight distance between bends (if applicable) was compatible with the benders on campus and no special fixtures needed to be made. Tubes were cut long and mitered after bending. The distances between the start and stop of the bend were used to measure straight sections. For a bent section, the radius of the die and the degree of bend (in the plane of bend) were used to get the correct dimension. Care was taken to make sure parts were correct mirrors of each other on the right and left sides of the frame. For tubes, such as the bottom bent member, that had more than one bend, an angle gauge was used to ensure they remained in their correct planes. One to one (1:1) scale templates were also cut to help gauge when the bend was long enough, as the incrementations available on the tubing bender were not very accurate.

55

Figure 52. Set up of the bottom bent member on the bender.

6.2.7 Mitering

All frame tubing had to be mitered to fit. Because much of the tubing was thin walled (.035” or .049” wall thickness), the miters had to fit as snugly as possible to avoid burning a hole in the tubing when welding. In order to achieve this high level of accuracy, a rigorous mitering process was followed. The first step in the process used the mitered solid model of whichever tube is being cut. The solid model was indexed to the center line and then unwrapped using the sheet metal function of SolidWorks. If the tube was straight and sufficiently short such that it fit on one piece of paper, then no indexing was needed. If there were bends or the tube was longer than a piece of paper, the miters on either end of the tube had to have a way of relating to each other. A triangular notch was placed on the center line (see Figure 53) pointing in the same direction on either end of the tube miters, shown in Figure 54. A known distance was set between the notches. Then the tube was unwrapped in SolidWorks and viewed as a flat pattern at 1:1 scale, as seen in Figure 55.

Figure 53. Solid model of a miter with Figure 55. Unwrapped model of indexed indexing cut. cut, shown in Figure 50.

Figure 54. Solid model of bent tube, showing indexes on centerline in plane of bend.

56

From this step, the pattern was printed out at 1:1 scale. It was then cut out and the paper was wrapped around the ends of the tube to be mitered. The right-side tubes were printed and labeled, and then when those tubes were done the paper could be flipped inside out and worked to make the left side tubes. The notch on the center line was placed (visually) on the center of the tube to be cut and the matching miter was placed in the same notch orientation. The notches were also placed at the known set distance apart. Then the paper was taped to the tube and the profiles of the miter were traced onto the tube, as shown in Figure 56. Once the profiles were marked, the tube is labeled. The rough profiles were cut using a bench grinder or 4” angle grinder. Then, they were cleaned up and brought closer with a Dremel and carbide burr tool. Finally, the tubes were filed Figure 56. Fork blade wrapped with paper to a final fit. Due to the difficulty of some of the miters, not template showing the miter. every miter was a very close fit. However, the team’s welder, Eliot Briefer, was able to compensate for this and did not have any trouble welding.

6.2.8 Welding

The entire 4130 chromoly chassis was joined using TIG welding. Parts of the jig were tacked together or to the welding table using either MIG or TIG welding. Frame members were tacked together first and test fit with the rider and then full welded. A more detailed order of operations for welding is detailed in 6.3 Assembly. Some in-progress pictures of welding the frame are shown in Figure 57, 58, and 59.

Figure 57. Middle and top side supports full welded, in progress welding the mid-drive truss members.

57

Figure 58. Eliot, the team welder, prepping joints for welding.

Figure 59. Kyra Schmidt holds a truss member in place while Eliot Briefer tacks it into the frame.

58

6.2.9 Composites

Fiberglass layups were utilized to stiffen impact foam and aid in the frame’s safety. The team did standard wet lay-ups that were air cured and not under vacuum. Safe manufacturing practices, such as using gloves and respirators were followed when doing fiberglass layups. Cloth and other materials were fully measured out and cut before mixing the resin and hardener to give the team as much work time as possible. A standard ratio of 7/9 resin to 2/9 hardener by weight was followed. Standard cutting practice was used to achieve one ply each of 45° and 90° weave. The fiberglass was made in flat sheets, of two plies thick. Peel ply was used on one side of the composite in case further layers needed to be added, and to aid in bonding the foam to the fiberglass. Figure 60 shows part of the layup process. Figure 60. Keyanna Henderson wetting out fiberglass cloth. 6.2.10 Out of House Parts

A total of 6 frame tube members were sent out to be bent at Advance Tube, on mandrel tubing benders. The tubes being bent out of house are listed immediately below. • 04-A01-001-FRAME-BottomBracketSupport • 04-A01-001-FRAME-RollhoopUpper • 04-A01-001-FRAME-TopSideSupportRight • 04-A01-001-FRAME-TopSideSupportLeft • 04-A01-001-FRAME-MidSideSupportRight • 04-A01-001-FRAME-MidSideSupportLeft

Because the tubing had such a thin wall and because of die sizing available on campus, certain tubes had to be sent out to a professional bender. The machine shops did not have a die of large enough outer diameter to fit with the bending the team needed to achieve. Team members visited the Advance Tube manufacturing floor in person and met Alex Alvarez, the owner. Advance Tube agreed to sponsor the team and bent six tubes for the team, free of charge. The team paid for the stock, but all set-up and manufacturing were donated. The tubes bent by Advance Tube are shown in Figure 61 and Figure 62.

Figure 61. Bottom bracket support, roll hoops, Figure 62. The middle side supports and top side bent by Advance Tube. supports, bent by Advance Tube.

59

6.3 Assembly

The frame was built in two stages using custom made frame jigs and the fork was welded using a production fork jig from Anvil.

6.3.1 First Stage Frame Jig

The first stage frame jig, shown in Figure 63 and 64, was used to locate most of the tubes. All members besides the bottom members and truss members were located with the first stage jig.

Figure 63. Overall first stage frame jig assembly, solid model.

Figure 64. Overall first stage frame jig assembly, as built.

60

The jig was located on the welding table using layout fluid, scribes, rulers, squares, and spring calipers. Once all components were located correctly in relation to each other, they were tacked to the welding table using a MIG welder. The roll hoop was welded first, flat on the table. From there, the roll hoop was set in the jig and the rear triangle welded using the jigging shown in Figure 65 and Figure 66. A custom dummy rear hub sets the correct dropout spacing. After the rear triangle was done, the rest of the frame was built off of the other side of the roll hoop. The head tube angle and location were set by the frame jig (Figure 67 and Figure 68), as well as the bottom bracket location. The bottom bracket support was located between the head tube and the bottom bracket and tacked into place. Then, the side supports were fit between the roll hoop and the head tube. The first stage frame jig without side supports is shown in Figure 69.

Figure 65. Roll hoop and rear triangle set up, Figure 66. Roll hoop and rear triangle set up, using tube using tube blocks to locate for wheel spacing, blocks to locate for wheel spacing, as built. solid model.

Figure 67. Front part of first stage frame jig, Figure 68. Front part of first stage frame jig, locating locating headtube and bottom bracket, solid headtube and bottom bracket, as built. model.

61

Figure 69. First stage frame jig with roll hoop, rear triangle, head tube, bottom bracket, and bottom bracket support located.

The next step was to miter and tack in the side supports. These proved the most difficult to miter, as even with templates printed, any error compounded from the out of plane bends caused the templates to be off. They were mitered mostly by eye with a file and a Dremel tool. Once the side supports were tacked, the frame was removed from the first stage frame jig and test fit with Josh. Clearances with the side support members while pedaling is a big concern for the team. The test fit schedule is detailed below, in 6.5.3 Test Fit Schedule.

Figure 70. First stage frame jig with all members except mid- drive truss members, solid model.

62

Figure 71. First stage frame jig with all members except mid-drive truss members, as built. After test fitting and ensuring rider clearances, the mid drive truss members were fit with the side supports and located using the frame jig. This was a critical step, as the accuracy of the mid drive trusses determines how the drivetrain mounts to the frame. The locational holes on the frame jig, shown in Figure 70 and 71, as well as the use of levels and transfer punches, allowed the team to get an accurate position for the mid drive truss members. First, the two ends were mitered roughly to fit with both side supports. Then, they were placed against the jig plates with the correct spacers (shown in blue in Figure 72 and the physical aluminum rounds in Figure 73). It was ensured that the miters allowed the tube to fit where the holes would be located along its center line. Next, the tube was covered in layout fluid and a transfer punch and ball peen hammer were used through the other side of the plates to mark where the hole center locations were. The tube with marked holes and a punch are shown in Figure 74. Then, the holes for the bosses were drilled at the marked location using a drill press, as well as a vice and v-block for holding. They were then placed back on the jig and the final filing was done to get the best fit possible.

Figure 72. Jigging for mid drive truss, Figure 73. Jigging for mid drive truss, solid model. as built.

63

The truss members had to be mitered correctly to both side support members and had to have holes drilled in the correct locations and perpendicular to the surface to allow for accurate drive train mounting. Fitting up to four different aspects of one tube was a long process, but the results were satisfactory. The drive train team was able to mount their components with no issues. The hole locations ended up less than a millimeter off and the degree difference between the right and left side was 1°. Figure 74. A marked and mitered Once the mid drive truss members were welded, the mid drive truss, ready to drill. drivetrain team could begin incorporating their subsystem onto the chassis. The frame was then moved to the next stage of jigging at this point to allow for the bottom members to be added. Since warpage for the frame was such a big concern, as many joints as could be accessed on the frame were welded with the frame still in the first stage jig. The head tube was a specific area of concern and was held in its place in the jig during at least 75% of the full welding done on it.

6.3.2 Second Stage Frame Jig

The second stage frame jig was used to locate the bottom members of the frame, and elevated the frame off the welding table such that wheels and hubs could be fit in. The bottom members were located along the centerline of the bike with the frame jig and ensured level. The bottom bent member was located between the harness mount bar and the head tube. This setup is shown in Figure 75 and 76. Lastly, the truss members will be fit in the around the rider in the bike and triangulated according to SAE standards. Figure 77 shows team members and the team welder inserting the last truss member into the frame.

Figure 75. Second stage frame jig layout on welding table, solid model.

Figure 76. Second stage frame jig layout on welding table, as built.

64

Figure 77. Eliot Briefer, Keyanna Henderson, and Kyra Schmidt, with the last truss member to go into the frame. 6.3.3 Fork Jig

The fork was welded on a standard fork jig, shown in Figure 78, that allows the user to set fork blade offset and dropout spacing. A custom front axle was made compatible with the jig to set the non-standard fork width. Miters were ground and filed due to the complex geometry of the fork blades. Figure 79 shows the mitered blades with the fork in the jig. The drivetrain team provided a jig to verify that the fork was welded with the correct spacing for the chain-line.

Figure 78. Anvil fork jig to be used in fork manufacture.

Figure 79. Fork assembled on fork jig, before welding, with steerer, front dropout, and custom dummy front axle.

65

As stated in 5.1.2. Fork, the fork also contains mounting points for the chain tensioner. The locations of these mounting points were given to the team by the drivetrain team, and then holes were drilled, and bosses welded into the fork blades. The setup for drilling the boss holes is shown below, in Figure 80.

Figure 80. Fork boss set up on the drill press.

6.3.4 Steering Assembly

Once the fork had been welded and the head tube full welded, the fork, head tube, and headset could be assembled. 5.1.2.2 Headset details what the headset is comprised of. A standard facer-reamer sized for the 44mm head tube on the bike was used to post machine the head tube after welding. Then the headset bearing cups were pressed into the head tube using a headset press (see Figure 81) and the fork steer tube inserted through the head tube and bearings. The stem and handlebars were placed over the steerer to mark where to cut the steerer. The steerer was cut to size with a hacksaw and a jig to keep the blade cutting straight. The race ring was press fit on the fork steerer. Finally, the whole assembly was pressed into place. The headset bearings were always removed before any new welding was done on the frame, to avoid the possibility of arcing across bearings. When the fork was assembled for the last time, some grease was put on the headset seals to help keep dirt and water from getting into the bearing assembly.

Figure 81. After post machining, pressing in bearing cups with headset press.

66

6.3.5 Test Fit Schedule

Due to the tight clearances expected from designing the chassis for one specific rider, regular test fits were employed during the manufacturing process. The rider was fit into the bike at all critical stages. Before full welding, all members were tacked into place until the fit was verified. The first major test fit occurred after the side supports were put into the bike. At this point the bottom members were not in, so the frame’s upper half was placed over Josh in the testing jig. The rider testing jig set him at the correct seatback angle, and measurements in CAD allowed the team to place the frame over him at the correct position relative to his body. This test fit is shown in Figure 82.

Figure 82. Test fit with Josh, top half of the bike and Josh in rider testing jig.

The second major test fit occurred once the bike was moved to the second stage jig and the bottom members were welded in. This allowed the team to test Josh getting in and out of the bike, as well as his fit with the seat in the actual bike. A representative set of cranks and a bottom bracket were installed in the bike and his pedal circle was able to be ensured fit with the side support members. This test fit is shown in Figure 83 and Figure 84.

Figure 83. Second major test fit, with representative length cranks, fork, bottom members and seat.

67

Figure 84. Second major test fit, side view, checking Josh’s pedal circle clearance with the frame.

The third critical test fit occurred when all the final bent truss members were put into the frame. These members were the last with a potential for interfering with the rider. During this test fit, the headset was also assembled, and the fork put into the bike to get a final idea of the rider’s clearances with the frame and other systems. The front wheel was placed into the fork, and the rear wheel placed into the rear triangle. The cranks to be used on the final bike were assembled and Josh was fit sitting on the final seat. Thus, with the frame fabricated and the drivetrain in its final position in the bike, the seat could incorporate any final rider comfort changes. This allowed Josh to give feedback and find his best possible position with the frame and drivetrain. Pictures from this test fit are shown in Figure 85 and 86.

Figure 86. Third test fit with Josh, checking clearance Figure 85. Test fit checking clearances with leg truss on the shoulder truss members, with steering system members, fork with wheel assembled, and final cranks and handlebars assembled. on the vehicle. Vision system and mid-drive also assembled.

68

The final test fit, shown in Figure 87, conducted included the fully welded frame, fully assembled drivetrain, fully assembled steering system, and final seat position. The frame was verified to have clearance within Josh’s full range of motion and that Josh was in a comfortable position for riding the bike. Once the Josh was positioned correctly, the seat was finalized according to Josh’s input.

Figure 87. Josh in final position in bike, with all frame members full welded.

6.3.6 Assembly Issues

The largest issue the team ran into during manufacturing was the orientation of the bottom bracket shell. The bottom bracket shell is threaded to allow for the bottom bracket to be screwed in. It is left hand threaded on one side and right had threaded on the other. Thus, it had to be welded into the frame in the correct orientation. However, the team did not accurately verify the orientation of the bottom bracket shell before welding this year. The drivetrain team was consulted after welding, and the bottom bracket shell was said to be fine. However, it was later figured out when the drivetrain components came in that the shell was in the wrong orientation. Thus, the shell had to be cut out of the frame, as shown in Figure 88, and welded in again. The structural integrity of this decision was discussed with Dr. Joe Mello and Jim Gerhardt, who both agreed that this action would have a negligible impact on strength of the frame. The most difficult part of the process was jigging the bottom bracket such that it would be held straight. Figure 88. Kyra Schmidt cutting Because the frame was so far along by the time the bottom bracket out the incorrect bottom bracket shell. shell error was recognized, it could no longer be put on the First Stage Jig to locate the bottom bracket. The team used the Second Stage Jig to locate the bottom bracket and brought it into square using a machinist’s square and measurements.

6.3.7 Future Recommendations

The biggest recommendation the team has for future years is double and triple checking the orientation of the bottom bracket shell. As detailed earlier, the team did not verify the orientation of the threaded bottom bracket shell before it was welded onto the frame and thus had to cut it out and re-weld it. To avoid this happening in future, it is recommended to have the drivetrain components on hand when the bottom bracket is welded. Thus, drivetrain can be assembled, and the bottom bracket clearly marked and placed into the jig in a known orientation. Then it can be welded.

69

Some other recommendations the team has for future years is the importance of jigging. Originally, the team had planned to only tack the frame on the jig and do most of the full welding off the jig, as is traditional for diamond frames. However, after discussions with Jim Gerhardt, the ME Department Safety Technician, the team decided to full weld as much as possible in the jig. This was due to the large number of joints and the unconventional geometry of the bike. In addition, the team realized that doing non-standard miters and bringing them in by hand takes longer than usually anticipated. The importance of patience and not cutting too far when mitering by hand cannot be stressed enough. Plenty of extra stock should also be purchased, because no matter how careful the team thinks they are, mistakes will always happen during manufacturing season. Finally, the team recommends that future teams learn as much bike jargon as possible. There are many unfamiliar terms used to describe bicycle components and if any team members do not have a solid background in bicycle terminology, it is highly recommended they do research until they are comfortable. Utilizing resources such as peers or professors who are proficient in bicycle terminology and components is encouraged.

70

7 Design Verification Plan

The next stage in the process further serves to support the final design by verifying manufacturing and testing. To do this the team looked to the specifications, first presented in chapter 3, to confirm that the final design, would meet all specifications. Specifications which would be verified at a later point were set aside using a specific testing procedure and discussed with further detail in a design verification plan, found in Appendix T.

7.1 Specifications

The specifications are shown below in Table 17, with results presented for those that have been measured thus far. All specifications that have been measured, aside from cost, are within tolerance of their target values. Testing for speed of the frame will be conducted over July and August 2019, in preparation for racing in September 2019. The final speed test will take place at competition, in Battle Mountain, Nevada. All tests conducted for the frame are detailed in 7.2 Testing. Table 17. Specifications with results to date.

Specifications No. Description Target Tolerance Result Pass/ Fail

1 Speed 61.3 + 10 mph TBD n/a mph 2 Frontal Area 475 in2 ± 75 in2 540 in2 Pass 3 Height of Center of Gravity 0.433 + 0.12, -0.03 m 0.493 m Pass Above Ground m 4 Cost $1,500 ± $300 $1,971.71 Fail 5 Weight 40 lbs < 40 lbs 22 lbs Pass 6 Instability Peak 10 mph ± 5 mph 12 mph Pass 7 High Speed Sensitivity (at < 8 +3, -2 rad/s/m 5.7 rad/s/m Pass 60 mph) rad/s/m 8 Low Speed Sensitivity < 21 ± 2 rad/s/m 19.1 rad/s/m Pass rad/s/m 9 Control Spring Intersection < 10 < 10 mph 6.5 mph Pass with X Axis mph 10 Deflection Under 5350 N 0.25 in < 0.25 in 0.141 in Pass Vertical Load to Roll Hoop 11 Deflection Under 2700 N 0.25 in < 0.25 in 0.066 in Pass Side Load to Roll Hoop 12 Deflection of Bottom 0.2 in < 0.20 in 0.098 in Pass Bracket 13 Radius of Gyration 0.31 m > 0.29 m 0.35 m Pass

7.2 Testing

The team conducted both qualitative and quantitative tests on the frame. These tests were conducted both on the frame itself and on representative models of certain frame components.

71

7.2.1 Load Testing

Load testing for the HPV frame involved testing a sample of the frame’s roll hoop, the main structure responsible for protecting the rider’s body. For this test, a roll hoop identical to the one used in the frame was fabricated to analyze how the roll hoop in the frame would perform in crash scenario. The load testing was done with three tests: a 1200 lbf vertical loading test, a 600 lbf side loading test, and a destructive vertical loading test. These tests were meant to collect data of deflection at designed crash loading cases (inches), the yield point of the roll hoop under vertical loading (lbf), energy absorbed by the roll hoop (foot-lbf), stress versus strain curve characteristics (qualitative), and failure characteristics of the part (qualitative). To conduct these tests, the team used the ME Department’s servo-hydraulic load frame, an Instron 1331, along with test fixturing that was built to fit the load frame’s connection points. The testing setup can be seen in Figures 88 and 89 below.

Load Frame

Roll hoop

Figure 89. Vertical loading setup. Figure 90. Horizontal Loading Setup.

Table 18. Roll hoop Deflection Testing Results

Roll Hoop Force Applied Allowable Deflection Pass/Fail Orientation Deflection Observed Vertical 1200 lbf 0.25” 0.141” Pass Horizontal 600 lbf 0.25” 0.066” Pass Vertical 3600 lbf n/a Permanent Pass Deformation

The first two tests conducted in the load frame were the vertical and horizontal load tests. These two tests were meant to certify that the frame could support the crash loads that were established using the ASME HPVC standards. These tests required that the roll hoop support the loads provided while not experiencing displacement greater than 0.25” and not entering a plastic region of deformation. As can be seen in Table 18 and Figures 91 and 92, these requirements were met in both tests. Load versus displacement data can be seen to be linear for both tests proving that the deformation of the roll hoop remained plastic. Likewise, maximum deformations for the vertical and horizontal load tests were 0.141” and 0.066” respectively which were well within the 0.25” specification

72

Figure 91. Vertical Loading. Figure 92. Horizontal Loading.

The final load test conducted was a vertical load to failure test. This test used an identical setup as the 1200 lbf vertical loading test. The results of this are shown in Figure 93 and they show the roll hoop failing similarly to what FEA predicted. The roll hoop yielded at approximately 1,690 lbf which was almost 500 lbf above the requirement. The ultimate load that the roll hoop was able to support was approximately 3,600 lbf. These loads are both well above the requirements that were altered from the ASME HPV competition regulations, so the team is confident that the roll hoop will be able to protect the rider in the unlikely event of a crash.

Figure 93. Destructive vertical loading.

FEA modeling indicated that the roll hoop would be able to pass this testing with a comfortable margin for error. This was proven to be true, giving the team further confidence in the structural modeling that was unable to be tested physically.

73

7.2.2 Test Fitting

The test fit schedule with Josh is detailed above, in 6.3.5 Test Fit schedule. Because test fits were such an integral part of the manufacturing processes, they were detailed in the manufacturing section. All test fits occurred at the Aero Hangar Machine Shop on Cal Poly’s campus.

7.2.3 Weld Testing

Weld quality testing was conducted in accordance with the Baja SAE safety regulations, detailed in Appendix D. This testing involved a destructive test and a penetration inspection test. For the destructive test, a 90-degree joint is tested until failure to ensure that failure occurred within the base metal (Figure 94). The second testing procedure was a visual inspection of a 30- degree offset weld; this testing involved sawing the test sample in half along the axis of the part to confirm that the weld achieved full penetration (Figure 95).

Figure 94. 90- degree destructive test. Figure 95. 30- degree inspection test.

The test samples were constructed using 1.25” OD x 0.035” wall thickness 4130 chromoly tubing. This was the same diameter tubing as the roll hoop structure and is the thinnest wall thickness used on the frame. This is representative of the most critical conditions for welded joints on the frame. The team’s welder, Eliot, welded the required sample joints. Both samples were welded at the Aero Hangar Machine Shop on Cal Poly’s campus, with a Dynasty 200 TIG welder, manufactured by Miller. Both tests were carried out per Baja SAE regulations Kevin Williams, Cal Poly’s welding instructor, inspected both samples, shown in Figure 96, and verified that they passed. Weld testing results are tabulated in Table 19.

Figure 96. Left to Right: 90-degree sample, showing base metal failure; 30-degree sample, cross section showing full penetration; 30- degree sample, top view.

74

Table 19. Weld Testing Results

Joint Pass/ Fail Notes from Kevin Williams 90- degree Pass Heat affected zone rip, failure of base metal 30- degree Pass Full penetration at either end of cross section, small amounts of burn through for how thin tubing was, good controlled weld

7.2.4 Weight

Overall weight of the frame was verified once all members had been welded or tacked into the frame. The weight of the headset and impact foam were taken to be negligible, as well as the small amounts of filler material added as full welding was finished. The frame was weighed using a Longacre Racing Computer Scale, borrowed from Cal Poly’s FSAE club, shown in Figure 97. The scale measures in one-pound increments. This testing was completed at the Aero Hangar. The frame and the fork were weighed individually first, and then a final measurement of both their combined weights was verified to equal that of the individual components within ±1 pound. To weigh the bike, the scale was plugged into power. The scale has the capability to measure from four scale pads, however since only Figure 97. Scale used for overall weight was required, one scale pad was used. The scale pad weighing the completed frame. was connected to the scale’s readout via a wire. The corresponding scale pad was plugged into the readout, and the frame was placed onto the scale pad, as seen in Figure 98. The weight of the bike was read off the scale’s readout, as shown in Figure 99. This procedure was repeated for the fork alone, and again for the frame and fork together.

Scale readout

Scale pad

Figure 99. Setup for weighing of the frame. Figure 98. Readout when weighing the frame individually.

The results of the weights measured are documented below, in Table 20. The weight of the frame individually as well as the frame and fork together are shown.

75

Table 20. Weight Testing Results

Component Specification Measured Weight Pass/ Fail Weight Frame < 40 lbs 22 lbs Pass Fork n/a 2 lbs Pass Frame and Fork < 40 lbs 24 lbs Pass

7.2.5 Center of Gravity and Radius of Gyration Testing

Center of gravity and radius of gyration testing was conducted according to the lab procedures followed in ME 441 Single Track Vehicle Design, a class on bicycle handling dynamics taught at Cal Poly. Both the vehicle’s center of gravity and moment of inertia, from which radius of gyration is derived, played a large role in the overall handling dynamics of the vehicle. To initially find the Patterson Control Model inputs, an estimation for these inputs were used. This test was conducted to validate the approximations used. The full testing procedures are detailed in Appendix AA.

7.2.5.1 Center of Gravity

To find center of gravity, the weight distribution across the vehicle with the rider had to be calculated. A schematic showing the variables measured to find center of gravity is shown in Figure 100.

Figure 100. Schematic of measured parameters for horizontal and vertical positions of center of gravity.

To find the horizontal component of center of gravity (horizontal distance from rear axle to center of gravity, labeled as “B”), the weight distribution of the vehicle was found on flat ground. The center of gravity’s distance from rear axle was found to be 2.84 ft, or 0.866 m. Hand calculations for the derivation of this test are shown in Appendix AB. The excel document used to perform these calculations is shown in Appendix AD. Uncertainty analysis was performed on this calculation. There were two different measurement tools used in this test, a Parktool tape measurer used to measure distance and a Longacre racing scale used to measure weight. The total uncertainty for the test was found to be 0.0039 ft. In comparison to the center of gravity’s location of 2.84 ft, this uncertainty is negligible. It is also well within the tolerance of + 0.39, - 0.098 ft for center of gravity. The tolerance for this test was found by testing how much of a change could be made to the center of gravity before the overall handling dynamics no longer met the other specifications. Because of this, any measurement within the tolerance is acceptable, as it correlates to acceptable handling qualities. Hand calculations for uncertainty analysis are shown in Appendix AE. The excel document used to perform these calculations is shown in Appendix AD. To find the vertical component of center of gravity (vertical distance from center of gravity point to ground), the weight distribution of the vehicle was found on flat ground. This was accomplished by raising the front wheel on foam blocks while leaving the rear wheel on the

76

ground. The vehicle was inclined at 5 different known angles, and the weight distribution measured for each angle, as seen in Figure 101.

Figure 101. Inclined testing for center of gravity, with Josh in vehicle, and front wheel raised on foam blocks. Team members stand by to stabilize the vehicle.

This test found the vertical distance from axle height to center of gravity, labeled as “h” in Figure 99. The radius of the wheel was added to this measurement to find the center of gravity’s distance from the ground. An average of the 5 trials was found this value to be 1.62 ft, or 0.493 m. Hand calculations for the derivation of this test are shown in Appendix AB. The excel document used to perform these calculations is shown in Appendix AD. Uncertainty analysis was performed on the vertical component of center of gravity. There were two different measurement tools used in this test, a Parktool tape measurer to measure distance and a Longacre racing scale to measure weight. The total uncertainty for the test was found to be 0.0062. In comparison to the center of gravity’s location of 1.62 ft, this uncertainty is negligible. It is also well within the tolerance of + 0.39, - 0.098 ft for center of gravity. However, it is larger than the horizontal center of gravity position uncertainty. This is to be expected as the horizontal position of center of gravity is used as an input to calculate the vertical position, so any errors propagate. Hand calculations for uncertainty analysis are shown in Appendix AE. The excel document used to perform these calculations is shown in Appendix AD. The final results for center of gravity testing are tabulated below in Table 21.

Table 21. Center of gravity testing results

Center of Approximation Measured Tolerance Pass/ Fail Uncertainty Gravity Location Horizontal 0.847 m 0.866 m + 0.12, - Pass 0.0039 0.03 m Vertical 0.433 m 0.403 m + 0.12, - Pass 0.0062 0.03 m

7.2.5.2 Radius of Gyration

The radius of gyration is derived from the mass moment of inertia. To measure the mass moment of inertia of the vehicle and rider, the vehicle and rider were swung on a swing with a known mass moment of inertia (Figure 102).

77

Figure 102. Josh Gieschen on the frame in the radius of gyration testing swing.

The period of oscillations was measured from the swing in 5 different trials (Figure 103).

Figure 103. Kyra Schmidt starts the swing and counts cycles, while Eliot Briefer times oscillations.

The average of the period measurements was used to calculate the moment of inertia for the total swing, bike, and rider system. Then, the moment of inertia of the swing was subtracted, leaving the moment of inertia of bike and rider. This was used to calculate the vehicle’s radius of gyration. The approximate value for radius of gyration used in initial vehicle handling calculations was 0.31 m. To be acceptable, the radius of gyration had to be greater than 0.29 m. The measured value was found to be 0.35 m, shown in Table 22. Hand calculations for the derivation of this test are shown in Appendix AC. The excel document used to perform these calculations is shown in Appendix AF.

Table 22. Radius of Gyration testing results

Radius of Gyration Approximation Measured Tolerance Pass/ Fail

About longitudinal (x) 0.31 m 0.35 m < 0.29 m Pass axis

78

7.2.5.3 Conclusions

Once the experimental values for center of gravity and radius of gyration were calculated, they were fed back into the Patterson Control Model. Then, the handling qualities were analyzed the same way as in 5.3.1 Geometry: Handling Dynamics. The model was shown to pass all the specifications both with the approximations used and the physical values calculated. Overlay plots of the vehicle’s predicted handling qualities with the experimentally determined values are shown in Figure 104 and 105.

20

0

0 4 8 12 16 20 -20 Measured -40 Geometry Approximate -60 Geometry -80

-100 Control Spring,K (Nm/rad) Spring,K Control Speed (mi/hr)

Figure 104. Control spring versus speed, overlaying approximate inputs and as-built measured inputs.

25

20

15

Measured 10 Geometry Approximate 5 Geometry

(rad/s/m) Sensitivity 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Speed (mi/hr)

Figure 105. Sensitivity versus speed, overlaying approximate inputs and as-built measured inputs.

The vehicle’s control spring stayed very close to its approximated value. Since the previous plot of control spring was satisfactory, this was acceptable. The vehicle’s sensitivity, however, was found to have a predicted decrease in its peak. This was an improvement for the vehicle’s specifications. A final table of the as-built Patterson Control Model inputs is shown below, in Table 23. The center of gravity, control spring, and total weight were adjusted according to their measured values.

79

Table 23. Final, as-built Patterson Control Model inputs

Variable Value Units a 1.43 m b 0.866 m h 0.493 m kx 0.35 m beta 17 degrees s -0.06 m Rt 0.3085 m m 113 kg Rh 0.19 m

80

8 Project Management

The design of the frame followed an iterative design process, in which the team spent roughly three months in each of the designing, manufacturing, and testing phases. Each of these phases have been completed, and the project has reached its conclusion. In preparation for the competition in September of this year, the team and club members will finalize the necessary public relations documents and continue to test the bike.

8.1 The Process

In order to design a bike frame that was stable, structural, and custom fit, the team used an iterative process to develop the final design. The frame was built in CAD around a custom rider model that matched the rider’s dimensions. Concurrently, the Patterson Control Model calculator was used to find an optimal combination of geometric inputs (such as wheelbase, fork offset, etc). This allowed the team to design a frame that accounted for rider spatial constraints, geometric constraints, stiffness requirements and the chosen wheel size. It was then analyzed using FEA to test for structural integrity both under rider loads and crash loads. From there, changes were made to improve the design’s robustness. Now, the final design presents the best combination of factors and a design that was verified to be manufacturable.

8.2 Analysis

In this project, the techniques used to analyze the frame were standard. The first stage consisting of building the model in SolidWorks. Then values were iterated using the Patterson Control Spring Model to dictate handling geometry and output resulting values such as instability peak and high-speed sensitivity. FEA was used to analyze the structural integrity of the frame and to ensure that side, bottom, and frontal impact loading cases would be met.

8.3 Purchases

As a club funded project, the team first tried to source materials and components from companies who wanted to support the project either cost-free or a discounted price. If this was not possible, club funds were utilized. Purchasing details can be found in Appendix O.

8.4 Key Deliverables and Dates

Now that the project has concluded, this section reviews the major deliverables and dates that occurred throughout the entire project (Table 24 and Figure 105). The next milestone in the project is the competition at Battle Mountain in September 2019. Between the submission of FDR and then, the team will work rigorously to prepare the vehicle and train the rider. The team utilized the Team Gantt software to organize and delegate tasks. A copy of the Gantt chart can be found in Appendix N.

81

Table 24. Key Deliverables and Due Dates.

Deliverable Due Date Scope of Work 10/19/18 Preliminary Design Review 11/13/18 Interim Design Review 1/17/19 Critical Design Review 2/7/19 Manufacturing and Test Review 3/14/19 Confirmation Prototype Review 4/30/19 Senior Project Expo 5/31/19 Battle Mountain Competition 9/7/19

Manufacturing Interim Design and Test Senior Project Scope of Work 10/19/18 Review 1/17/19 Review 3/14/19 Expo 5/31/19

Preliminary Critical Design Confirmation Battle Mountain Design Review Review 2/7/19 Prototype 9/7/19 11/13/18 Review 4/30/19

Figure 106. Overall project timeline.

82

9 Conclusion

This Final Design Review (FDR) report is a summarization of the research conducted, ideas developed, designs investigated, and prototype manufactured for the Human Powered Vehicle Frame. The Human Powered Vehicle Frame team was responsible for designing and building the frame, the steering system, and rider-specific safety concerns. The frame was custom fabricated to fit the rider using 4130 Chromoly round tubing. The steering system utilized a custom-built bicycle fork and standard headset. Rider safety and comfort was addressed throughout the fabrication and installation of impact foam panels and a racing harness. All safety specifications for the frame project were passed. Thus, it is recommended that the frame be raced at Battle Mountain 2019, during which the final tests for speed can be run. The frame is currently in the process of being integrated with other subsystems of the vehicle and will be rideable by June 15th, 2019. It is also recommended that the frame be used June through August 2019 for rider testing and practice. For future years, many aspects of the frame can be optimized and iterated upon. The team recommends that teams in future years do a more thorough optimization of the truss and beam elements of the frame. While the current frame passes all specifications, the team believes it is over-built and its weight and frontal area can be decreased through optimization. Now that an initial frame is built, the rider can give physical feedback as to his or her comfort level and rider- specific concerns can be addressed. In addition, with a physical prototype that will be raced at high speeds, the handling dynamics of the frame can be further iterated upon. With the combination of rider feedback and the predicted handling qualities of the vehicle, future teams can adjust the handling curves of the vehicle. It is recommended that the vehicle’s behavior be tuned based upon rider preference. Finally, the team recommends that the frame shift to being constructed from steel to composites when future teams are prepared to do so. If done correctly, a composite frame can be lighter and stiffer than a steel frame and provide extremely rider specific ergonomic elements. With the conclusion of a year-long project dedicated to the vehicle, the team is ready to see the bike race. The scope of the senior project on the frame is over—however, outside of senior project, the team’s next steps will be to work with the rider to test and practice riding the vehicle. This will prepare the rider for racing at Battle Mountain. The team will be in touch throughout the rider training process and to deliver the results in September 2019.

83

Works Cited

[1] ArtsCyclery. “Tech Talk: How Frame Geometry Affects a Bike's Handling - Mtbr.com.” Mountain Bike Review, 20 Nov. 2015, reviews.mtbr.com/tech-talk-how-frame-geometry- affects-a-bikes-handling. [2] “HPV Streamliner Speeds.” Adventuresofgreg.com, www.adventuresofgreg.com/HPVlog/VehicleDrags.html. [3] “Geometry of Bike Handling.” Calfee Design, calfeedesign.com/geometry-of-bike-handling/. [4] “Types of Recumbents: Long & Short.” Types of Recumbents, TALU, 2010, talu.com/typesofbents.php. [5] Anderson, John. “Recumbent Bikes.” Recumbent Bikes, www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/FancyBikes.htm. [6] “Eta: Technical Info.” Aerovelo, www.aerovelo.com/past-bikes. “General Information - [7] Glaskin, Max. “How Does Frame Geometry Affect a Bike?” Cyclist, 31 Aug. 2018, www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/816/how-does-frame-geometry-affect-a-bike. [8] “Headset Standards.” Park Tool, 17 Aug. 2015, www.parktool.com/blog/repairhelp/headset-standards. [9] Teplukhina, I.V., Bogdanov, V.I., Zaitseva, O.Y. et al. Metallurgist (2018) 61: 787. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11015-018-0565-6 [10] Davol, Andrew, and Frank Owen. Model of a Bicycle from Handling Qualities Considerations. Model of a Bicycle from Handling Qualities Considerations. [11] Knaus, Benjamin, et al. “ASME Human Powered Vehicle.” Cal Poly Digital Commons, Cal Poly , 2010, digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1 &article=1065&context=mesp. [12] “Competition Rules.” Ihpva.org, International Human Powered Vehicle Association, Aug. 2018, www.ihpva.org/rules.htm. [13] Longitudinal Radius of Gyration, www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/wave4.doc. [14] Kyle, C. R., & Weaver, M. D. (2004). Aerodynamics of human-powered vehicles. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 218(3), 141-154. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.calpoly.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/219206330 ?accountid=10362 [15] Too, Danny and Landwer, Gerald E., "Maximizing Performance in Human Powered Vehicles: A Literature Review and Directions for Future Research" (2008). Kinesiology, Sport Studies and Physical Education Faculty Publications. 102. https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/pes_facpub/102 [16] “What's the Difference between 650cc and 26’ Wheels?: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums.” Forum.slowtwitch.com, 21 Feb. 2005, forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Whats_the_dif ference_between_650cc_and_26_wheels_P329062/. [17] “Chase Vehicle Rules .” Recumbents.com , World Speed Challenge at Battle Mountain , recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2018/RacersandTeamsinfo2018.pdf. [18] “Rules for the 2019 Human Powered Vehicle Challenge.” Human Powered Vehicle

84

Challenge | ASME Engineering Network, ASME, 23 Sept. 2018, community.asme.org/hpvc/m/default.aspx. [19] Baja SAE Collegiate Design Series Baja SAE® Rules. SAE, 2018, bajasae.net/content/2018-BAJA-RULES-FINAL-2017-08-30.pdf. [20] “Battle Mountain 2016: An Unbelievable Leap to 89.59 Mph (144.17 Km/Hr).” Aerovelo, 19 Sept. 2016, www.aerovelo.com/mission-log/2016/9/19/battle-mountain-2016-an-unbelievable-leap- to-8959-mph-14417-kmhr.

85

Appendix A: Research on Aerodynamics and Ergonomics of Human Powered Vehicles

This appendix details more research on aerodynamics & ergonomics of human powered vehicles.

Aerodynamics of human powered vehicles is a heavily studied topic. It has been found that on a smooth, flat road, air resistance is the greatest force against the normal road cyclist. A wind speed of approximately 25 MPH can constitute over 90% of retarding forces [14]. When aerodynamics is improved the normal road cyclist can experience a decrease in wind resistance of 20% and the human powered vehicle – over 95%. While there are several factors to adjust/include in order to decrease wind resistance against any type of cyclist, there are three that apply significantly to human powered vehicles: decreasing the frontal area, streamlining components, and smoothing the surfaces. Frontal area is a specification of the vehicle that falls under the breadth of the fairing, but it is something that impacts the frame as well. The width of the front of the frame has a positive relationship with the frontal area and should therefore be a factor that is minimized. The bike as will then displace less area when in motion and move more swiftly. Next is streamlining. Streamlining reduces air turbulence and energy waste and is the reason why HPV’s are shaped the way they are. It also explains the recumbent position – riders are literally streamlining their bodies. Last is smoothing the surfaces. Wind resistance can be seriously decreased by simply avoiding a rough and uneven surface. The Virtual Edge, in Figure 107, designed by Greg Weaver, is an excellent example of a bike that has nearly eliminated the effects of wind resistance. It features a laminar flow streamlined body, a smooth outer surface, and no windshield. Speed of human powered vehicles is maximized just as, if not more, by the rider. The Figure 107. The Virtual Edge by Matt Weaver. rider’s body position has a great influence on the maximum power output that he can achieve. When comparing the standard road to the recumbent bicycle, you see a reasonable amount of power loss. This is because [based on the force length relationship] muscles are able to produce the greatest force when they are at a resting length. However, the recumbent position’s contributions to aerodynamics, and consequently speed, are so great that it is used. Therefore, designers of HPV’s must ensure that all angles the rider assumes when in the recumbent position will have a positive correlation with power output. The forces and torques that a rider uses to produce power are function of how internal biomechanical factors of the body interact with external mechanics of the bike. Hip, knee, and ankle angles work with the constraints of the seat to pedal distance, the seat angle, and more. It is important to identify values for these angles and then to make incremental adjustments to distances and dimensions. One of the main dimensions that was focused on is the seat angle. Many studies, including that of Too and Landwer in Maximizing Performance in Human Powered Vehicles have found that the range of values for a seat angle producing maximum power fall between 20 and 30 degrees [15].

86

Appendix B: Research on Bicycle Components that Directly Interface with the Frame

This appendix details the research done on the main bicycle components affecting frame design.

Wheel choice affects not only the handling of the frame, but also rolling resistance and the drivetrain power to speed conversions. Due to their widespread availability, variety of tube, tire, and rim options, and relatively small profile, the team has decided to use 650cc road bicycle wheels with the frame. 650c is the size of wheel commonly seen on children’s or very small road bikes. It translates to roughly 26” in diameter, though that is not an exact conversion [16]. A smaller wheel is valuable for a Battle Mountain bike because it can be more compactly fit under the fairing, and thus reduce the overall frontal area of the bike. While a 650c is by no means the smallest wheel available, it has the most standard options available and is still relatively compact. In addition, having larger wheel rims means the rider will not have to pedal at quite as fast an RPM to reach the same speeds (all other factors held constant). This makes the drive ratio less aggressive, freeing up more space in the bike and making component integration to the frame an easier task. Eta, the human powered vehicle that currently holds the World Speed Record, also used 650c wheels. Some other recommendations that were given to the team regarded component choice. The frame must accommodate the headset chosen and the headset chosen must be structurally sound with the frame. Standard, semi-integrated, and integrated headsets are commercially available as shown in Figure 108.

Figure 108. Pictorial depiction of the different types of headsets.

It was recommended to the team by Jim Gerhardt that a “semi-integrated” headset be used. This type of headset offers a larger head tube, thus allowing for more area to weld to for the frame, and bearings that are internal to the head tube. However, there is currently debate in the bicycle industry whether this style has an advantage in performance than another. Ultimately, the quality of a headset is largely determined by the quality of the bearings used and its manufacture. In contrast to a fully integrated headset, a semi-integrated headset still has bearing cups (they are simply sunk into the head tube), and thus retains its ability to be serviced.

87

Appendix C: Material Selection

This appendix details the material selection process for the frame that involved carbon fiber and aluminum.

One material that was considered for the manufacture of the vehicle was carbon fiber. Carbon fiber has been used by the Human Powered club for decades in the fairing and other components; in addition, just last year the club designed and manufactured a carbon fiber monocoque. Advantages of carbon fiber include strength and strength to weight ratio. Of the materials considered, carbon fiber has the best strength to weight ratio by a large margin. Its strength is also outstanding; however, there are additional considerations that must be taken as carbon fiber is only strong in the direction of the weave. In areas of manufacturability, ease of repair, and cost carbon fiber quickly shows its limitations. Carbon fiber is the most expensive material that was considered. Although carbon fiber was donated in years past, the molds, man hours, chemicals, and other materials used in manufacture all make working with carbon an extremely expensive endeavor. On the note of manufacturability, carbon fiber shows yet another weakness. Carbon fiber is the most difficult material to design for and manufacture. The amount of man hours that are used for carbon fiber layups are massive. And the final area of concern is the ability to repair the material. There exists no means to repair cracked carbon fiber other than layering more carbon on top, which is a very poor fix. These weaknesses pushed us to quickly decide against carbon for the frame material. Aluminum was the next material that was considered. The Human Powered club has not had much experience working with aluminum as a frame material. Aluminum however does have advantages that would lend it well to being used on the frame. Aluminum’s strength to weight ratio is outstanding, and although it is relatively soft, it is a homogeneous material with no directional strength limitations like carbon. Unlike carbon aluminum can be welded; however, welding aluminum is a difficult form of the art which requires heat treating after. Cal Poly does not have an oven large enough to heat treat a full frame, therefore, the work would need to be shipped to an external company. Aluminum can be repaired by welding it which is a significant advantage when compared to carbon.

88

Appendix D: Applicable Standards from ASME, Formula SAE, and Baja SAE Rules

This appendix details a listing of applicable industry codes, standards, and regulations.

ASME HPV Rules [18] 1. Safety a. The safety of participants, spectators, and the general public will override all other considerations. Any event can be delayed, terminated prematurely, or canceled if the Head Judge determines it necessary. b. Each vehicle must demonstrate that it can come to a stop from a speed of 25 km/hr in 6.0 m, can turn within an 8.0 m radius, and demonstrate stability by traveling for 30 m in a straight line at a speed of 5 to 8 km/hr. c. Each vehicle must have a braking system with properly designed brakes on the front most wheel at a minimum. If multiple forward wheels are used each wheel must have its own brake. d. All vehicles must include a rollover protection system (RPS) that protects all drivers in the vehicle in the event of an accident. e. All drivers of all vehicles in all events will always be secured to their vehicle by safety harnesses with lap and shoulder belts (4 or 5-point harnesses) that the vehicle is in motion. The safety harness must be attached to the RPS or a structural member in the RPS. f. All surfaces of the vehicle (exterior and interior) must be free from sharp edges and protrusions, and other hazards. g. All participants must wear fully enclosed shoes, appropriate clothing, and properly fitting helmets with fastened straps that meet Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Safety Standard. h. All drivers will log no less than 30 minutes of riding experience in their vehicle prior to the competition. i. A competition official shall oversee tests of each vehicle’s ability to meet the braking, turning, and forward motion requirements. j. Modifications to vehicles between events of the competition must not compromise the safety of the vehicle. The competition officials reserve the right to remove, from the competition, any vehicle that is judged to be unsafe by any metric.

ASME HPV Loading Cases [18] 1. Rollover Protection System (RPS) Load Cases a. The RPS system shall be evaluated based on two specific load cases – a top load representing an accident involving an inverted vehicle and a side load representing a vehicle fallen on its side. In all cases the applied load shall be reacted by constraints at the safety harness attachment points; simulating the reaction force exerted by the rider in a crash. b. Top Load: A load of 2670 N per driver/stoker shall be applied to the top of the roll hoop(s), directed downward and towards the rear of the vehicle at an angle of 12° from the vertical, and the reactant force must be applied to the seat belt, seat, or roll hoop

89

attachment point and not the bottom of the roll hoop (unless the bottom is the attachment point). Note that there may be one roll hoop for the driver and another roll hoop for the stoker which will result in each RPS having an applied load of 2670 N, or the driver and stoker can both be protected by a single roll hoop which will result in the RPS having an applied load of 5340 N. The roll hoop is acceptable if 1) there is no indication of permanent deformation, fracture, or delamination on either the roll hoop or the vehicle frame, 2) the maximum elastic deformation is less than 5.1 cm and shall not deform such that contact with the driver’s helmet, head or body will occur. c. Side Load: A load of 1330 N per driver/stoker shall be applied horizontally to the side of the roll hoop at shoulder height, and the reactant force must be applied to the seat belt, seat, or roll hoop attachment point and not the other side of the roll hoop. Note that there may be one roll hoop for the driver and another roll hoop for the stoker which will result in each RPS having an applied load of 1330 N, or the driver and stoker can both be protected by a single roll hoop which will result in the RPS having an applied load of 2670N. The roll hoop is acceptable if 1) there is no indication of permanent deformation, fracture or delamination on either the roll hoop or the vehicle frame, 2) the maximum elastic deformation is less than 3.8 cm and shall not deform such that contact with driver’s helmet, head occurs. Loads and their points of application are shown in Figure 109.

Figure 109. Example of proper RPS (rollover protection system) design and side and top load case applications [18].

90

SAE Safety Standards [19] 1. RRH – Rear Roll Hoop The RRH, as shown in Figure 111, is a planar structure behind the driver’s back that defines the boundary between the front-half and rear-half of the roll cage. The driver and seat must be entirely forward of this panel. The RRH is substantially vertical but may incline by up to 20 deg. from vertical. The vertical members of the RRH may be straight or bent and are defined as beginning and ending where they intersect the top and bottom horizontal planes. The vertical members must be continuous tubes (i.e. not multiple segments joined by welding). The vertical members must be joined by ALC and BLC members at the bottom and top (see Figure 110). ALC and BLC members must be continuous tubes or adhere to Section 2. Butt Joints. Lateral Connections (LC) members cannot have a bend; however, they can be a part of a larger, bent tube system. ALC, BLC, and RRH members must all be coplanar.

Figure 110. General frame Figure 111. General rear roll hoop schematic showing lateral schematic. connections.

2. Butt Joints a. Requirement Roll cage element members which are made of multiple tubes, joined by welding, must be reinforced with a welding sleeve. Many roll cage elements are required to be continuous tubes and may not be made of multiple pieces. Tubes which are joined at an angle need not be sleeved. b. Size Sleeves must be designed to fit tightly on the inside of the joint being reinforced. External sleeves are not allowed. Sleeves must extend into each side of the sleeved joint, a length of at least two times the diameter of the tubes being reinforced and be made from steel at least as thick as the tubes being reinforced. c. Welding The general arrangement of an acceptable sleeved joint is shown in Figure 112. A butt weld and four (4) rosette welds are required. Two (2) rosette welds are required each tube piece. Rosette welds are to be made in holes of a minimum diameter of 16 mm (0.625 in.). A minimum of 102 mm (4.0 in.) of linear weld is required to secure the sleeve inside the joint, including the butt joint and the rosette welds.

91

Figure 112. Interior of acceptable sleeved joint.

3. SIM – Side Impact Members The two Side Impact Members (SIM), shown in Figure 113, define a horizontal mid-plane within the roll cage. These members are joined to the RRH and extend generally forward, at least as far as a point forward of every driver’s toes, when seated in normal driving position. The forward ends of the SIM members are joined by a lateral cross member, DLC. The DLC may be omitted if the GLC provides adequate protection for the driver’s toes.

Figure 113. General frame schematic showing side impact members.

4. USM – Under Seat Member The USM, shown in Figure 114, must be positioned in such a way to prevent the driver from passing through the plane of the LFS in the event of seat failure.

Figure 114. General frame schematic showing under seat member.

5. Welding Process Check Each person who makes any welded joint on any of the vehicle’s roll cage elements must personally make two welding samples (defined below), using the same materials and processes as used in the roll cage element welds. Welding samples must be made from the same tube

92

Sample 1: Destructive Testing A 90-degree joint, the leg length is unrestricted (Figure 115). This joint must be destructively tested causing the joint to fail in the base material (as opposed to the weld metal). The testing method is free- either tensile or bending failure may be induced; however, the peak stress must be located at the weld. In the case of bending failure, take care that the largest bending moment is located at the weld.

Figure 115. Weld sample for destructive testing.

Sample 2: Destructive Inspection Two tubes joined at a 30-degree angle with a length of at least 150 mm (5.9 in.) from the center of the joint (Figure 116). The sample must be sectioned along the length of tube to reveal adequate and uniform weld penetration.

Figure 116. Weld sample for destructive inspection. 6. Driver Clearance a. Vertical Space The driver’s helmet shall have 152 mm (6 in.) minimum clearance from any two points among those members that make up to top of the roll cage. b. Sharp Edges The entire vehicle, including the roll cage shall have no exposed sharp edges which might endanger the driver, track workers, or people working around the vehicle while the vehicle is in any attitude (static, dynamic, inverted, etc.). 7. Driver Restraint a. Function The driver restraint system shall function to safely and securely hold the driver within the envelope of the vehicle’s roll cage. The driver restraint system shall also quickly and completely disengage when required to allow the driver a minimum egress time. The driver restraint system, shown in Figure 68, consists of a safety harness, arm restraints, and the vehicle’s seat. The driver restraint system shall be fully functional and properly worn whenever the driver is seated in the vehicle.

93

b. Driver Harness The driver harness shall consist of a 5-point (or more) system comprised of two shoulder belts (left and right), two lap belts (left and right), and one or more anti- submarine belts all joining at a single, central buckle (disconnect point). Figure 117 shows a schematic of a five-point harness. The anti-submarine belt serves to positively locate the buckle and prevent the driver from riding under the lap belts.

Figure 117. Driver harness schematic. c. Release Mechanism All belts in the driver harness must join to a single, central, metal-to-metal, lever-type, quick-release buckle. Cam-Lock, and other enclosed buckles susceptible to jamming from small debris (such as sand particles) are explicitly prohibited. The release mechanism (buckle) shall be protected against accidental unfastening from a direct pull, rollover or slide along the side. d. Shoulder Belts The shoulder harness shall be of the over-the-shoulder type. Only separate shoulder straps are permitted. “Y”-type shoulder straps are explicitly prohibited. e. Positioning, Vertical The shoulder belt mounting point, point (A) in Figure 118, shall be positioned no higher than vertically level with each driver’s shoulders, and no lower than 102 mm (4.0 in.) vertically below each driver’s shoulders.

Figure 118. Driver harness schematic showing mounting points. f. Positioning, Lateral The lateral spacing of the shoulder belts shall be between 178 mm (7.0 in.) and 229 mm (9.0 in.) when measured center-to-center. See Figure 119. Lateral position of the shoulder belts along their mounting tube must be restrained by a structure other than the firewall.

94

Figure 119. Lateral spacing between shoulder belts.

g. Attachment The shoulder belts shall be looped and secured around a straight, horizontal tube welded within the plane of the RRH. Provisions for lateral position restraint shall be provided. Firewall material is not acceptable for lateral position restraint. See Figure 120 for details.

Figure 120. Proper attachment of driver harness to frame. 8. Eye Protection a. Type All drivers shall wear motocross-style goggles with a full-circumference elastic band that wraps completely around the driver’s helmet. “Quick Straps” or other quick- release systems are explicitly prohibited. 9. Clothing a. Gloves Drivers shall wear gloves to protect their hands. Durable, abrasion resistant gloves are required. b. Shoes Drivers shall wear socks and shoes. c. Upper Garments Drivers shall wear a fire-resistant shirt. The shirt must have a factory label showing an SFI rating, FIA rating, NFPA 2112 rating, or other fire-resistant rating. d. Lower Garments Drivers shall wear long pants made of natural materials such as cotton, denim, etc. Drivers may also wear fire resistant pants having an SFI, FIA, NFPA 2112, or other fire-resistant rating. e. Combustible Material Jerseys, gloves, socks or other garments made from nylon or any other synthetic material which will melt or combust when exposed to open flame or extreme heat, are explicitly prohibited from use during competition.

95

Appendix E: IHPVA Rules and Regulations

This appendix details a listing of Battle Mountain competition rules and regulations.

International Human Powered Vehicle (IHPVA) Vehicle Requirements [12] 1. Power a. Vehicles must be driven solely by human power. b. Non-human power sources (batteries, solar cells, etc.) are permitted only for powering sensors, displays, communication equipment and lights. c. Control devices, cooling fans, powered aerodynamic devices, etc., may not be powered from non-human sources. 2. Energy Storage a. No device which stores energy over more than one input power cycle (e.g., one leg stroke), or which releases energy under control of the operator, may be used in any event except the road race, or speed events longer than one mile. b. Energy storage devices are permitted in these events provided no energy is stored before the start of the event (no chemical, electrical, kinetic, potential, or other form.) 3. Brakes a. All vehicles must have a brake system. 4. Control a. All vehicles must be controlled by the rider(s), with the single exception of that necessitated by the standing start. (see 5. Flying Start a.) 5. Flying Start a. The vehicle may be moving before entering the timed portion of the course. During launch of the vehicle from a stationary position, the vehicle may be assisted by no more than 3 persons per single rider vehicle. Assistants may push the vehicle, but assistance is limited to the first 15 meters of vehicle travel. All launch assistants must be on foot and cannot use anything other than their hands (or gloves) to touch the vehicle while it is in motion. Roller skates are specifically prohibited. 6. Integrity a. No vehicle may discard any part after beginning motion. b. Any external devices that are not integral to the vehicle and are temporarily affixed to provide stability or assistance while starting are prohibited (launch carts, push sticks, etc.) 7. Geometry a. Vehicle geometry may not be alterable during use except for steering purposes; i.e. sails or moving control surfaces specifically intended to enhance the sailing characteristics of the vehicle are not permitted. 8. Rider a. The vehicle shall contain only one person. b. No change of riders or removal of riders is permitted during a race. 9. Wind Speed a. 1.66 m/s max wind speed in any direction for a legal record run.

96

10. Safety a. All riders shall wear helmets during all competition. b. Helmets must meet the standards of a nationally accredited testing facility of an IHPVA member country. The burden of proof of meeting these requirements resides with the competitor. c. Vehicles may be disqualified from competition due to inadequate braking capability, lack of stability, poor visibility, presence of dangerous protrusions, or other unsafe design features. d. Vehicles deemed unsafe may be flagged off the course by event officials. 11. Safety Recommendations a. Install a red flashing light or reflective tape somewhere on the back of your bike. b. Encircle the rider-area of your bike with the extra protection of strong and abrasive- resistant composites. c. Purchase a set of radios for communication with the rider.

Battle Mountain Rules and Procedures [12] 1. Course a. The Rt. 305 course has a five-mile run-up with a 200-meter trap followed by 2/3 of a mile deceleration zone to the catch area. 2. Records a. This event will run under the IHPVA Competition Rules. Speed records are sanctioned by the IHPVA. Classes are divided by gender, number or riders, age groups, and a subclass for multitrack vehicles.

Battle Mountain Chase Vehicle Rules [17] 1. Chase Vehicle Rules a. Only one chase vehicle allowed per bike. b. There must be enough people in the chase vehicle to catch the bike on the road (two people minimum.) c. Chase vehicles will have a chase official onboard with radio and flare to communicate any problems with the bike to race control and other chase vehicles. d. Moving bikes in the right lane and chase vehicles in the left lane. e. Mechanical problems and accidents: Non-moving bikes and chase vehicles on the left, as close to the fence as possible. If a downed bike is on the right, park chase vehicle to far left and assist in moving bike and rider to far right. f. Chase vehicles must never pass normally moving bikes. Stay behind a minimum of 100 meters. Failure to stay this distance behind your bike will result in a disqualification of that run, even though it was the chase vehicle driver’s fault. g. Passing is extremely dangerous. Chase vehicles should be aware of the bikes following them, particularly if the chase vehicle is moving slowly and is at risk of being overtaken. If this situation occurs, both the leading bike and chase vehicle “are having a problem” and should have moved to the left lane, and off of the road. h. If there is any problem, turn on your flashers to warn oncoming bikes and chase vehicles.

97

i. If a following chase vehicle sees that their rider is going to overtake another chase vehicle, the chase vehicle should radio to the leading chase vehicle and tell it to hold its line. Bikes may pass on the right or stay behind and follow depending on where they are on course. 2. Course Rules a. Start – Turn on your car/truck headlights. b. On course – The chase official should continually check his mirrors and communicate on the radio to be aware of the position of the following bike and chase vehicle. c. Timing area – When you approach the timing area, slow down to 45 mph. Stay at least 200m behind the bike. d. Bridge – At the bridge turn off your headlights to help the catch team see the bikes. e. Catch area - Slow down! Do not pass your bike before it is caught. Pull directly into the parking area all of the way past the gate. Bikes can arrive within seconds of one another. The catch team will handle the bike. Catch vehicle helpers will have time to get back and assist the rider out of the bike. Use caution, the catch area is very busy; there are bikes, riders, team members, media and spectators who may not be paying close attention.

98

Appendix F: Photos of Battle Mountain 2018

This appendix contains photos taken of competing bikes at Battle Mountain 2018, taken by Kyra Schmidt.

Figure 121. Kevlar fairing protector on IUT Figure 122. Frame for Eta Prime. Annecy’s vehicle.

Figure 123. Rear triangle on Van Vugt. Figure 124. Wheel spacer device on Varna.

99

Figure 125. Front fork on TU Delft’s vehicle. Figure 126. Front support on Varna.

100

Appendix G: Physical Parameters of Patterson Control Model

This appendix contains Table 25 which outlines the physical parameters of the Patterson Control Model.

Table 25. Physical parameters of the Patterson Control Model.

Physical Parameter Representative Variable Units Wheelbase – horizontal a meters distance between axles Horizontal distance from rear b meters axle to center of gravity Vertical distance from ground h meters to center of gravity Longitudinal radius of kx meters gyration Head tube angle – measured beta degrees from vertical Fork offset – perpendicular s meters distance between steering axis and axle Front wheel radius – vertical Rt meters distance from ground to axle Total mass of bike and rider m kg Handlebar radius – Rh meters perpendicular distance from center of head tube to end of handlebars

101

Appendix H: Notes from Meeting about Old Battle Mountain Chassis

This appendix contains notes from a meeting with George Leone about old chassis.

Primal 2 Notes: • 3-4 crashes, after that seemed more unstable at high speeds (perhaps the wheels or something else got out of true) • it was harder to start from stopped than Primal 1 • inefficient drive • rider wanted a more reclined position, could be more responsive at high speeds • max speed: 70+ mph

Primal 1 Notes: • more upright (easier to ride and start) • built like an ASME bike • wheelbase was too short (feels twitchy) • the rider liked riding the bike • max speed: 65 mph

Zeta Notes: • Tom Amick built as a time trial bike • No fairing • Raced at the velodrome and at time trials

102

Appendix I: Customer Needs and Wants

This appendix contains Table 26 which outlines the customer needs and wants.

Table 26. Customer Needs and Wants.

Needs Wants Support the rider under normal riding Rider comfort conditions, protect the rider under crash loads Ability to reach speeds of 61.2 MPH, to break Cost-effective frame design American Collegiate Record Be stable at speeds over 60 mph Lightweight Custom frame tailored to chosen rider Easy to manufacture Provide mounting points for all other Ease of maintenance subsystems, such as drivetrain, fairing, seat, etc. Have low frontal area, ability to be integrated with aerodynamic elements Structural roll hoop Allow rider to produce high power output Available to race at Battle Mountain 2019 Adheres to Battle Mountain race technical specifications as well as safety specification set by Dr. Mello and Jim Gerhardt

103

Appendix J: House of Quality

This appendix contains the House of Quality generated through the QFD process.

104

Appendix K: Concept Models

This appendix contains photos and descriptions of concept models created by the team during a rapid prototyping session. Photos were taken by Brendon Morey.

Figure 127 shows a frame with one under member. There is bracing that comes up from the bottom under the roll hoop, which comes straight down. The front wheel is smaller than the rear, and there is one triangulation to the wheel.

Figure 127. Frame with one under member.

Figure 128 is another frame with one under member, as well as side bracing and side impact foam. The roll hoop tapers in from the shoulders and contains impact foam near the rider’s head. There are two rear triangle triangulation members.

Figure 128. Frame with one under member, side bracing, and impact foam.

Figure 129 shows a sleeker design. This frame has long tubes bent instead of welded. There is a roll hoop and shoulder area roll hoop. There are two members on the bottom and side for bracing.

Figure 129. Frame with tube bends instead of welding.

105

Figure 130 shows a frame with bracing that comes around the bottom and side, with impact foam along sides & back. There are no negative bends in roll hoop and the two wheels would be the same size.

Figure 130. Frame with bottom and side bracing and side and back impact foam.

The last model, shown in Figure 131, was designed to resemble the frame of Primal 2 by George Leone. It has a Roll hoop that is connected to the rear axle, a side hoop that comes up from the floor, and one member along the bottom.

Figure 131. Frame resembling Primal 2.

106

Appendix L: Concept Prototype

This appendix contains photos of the process and test results from the concept prototype manufacturing, taken by Keyanna Henderson. Process

Figure 132. Hot worked bending on homemade die.

Cold worked, outer diameter = 1”, thickness = 0.058”

Figure 133. Cold worked bending on shop jig Figure 134. Bent tube showing failure by showing this tube was bent to 100°. deformation.

Cold worked, outer diameter = 1.25”, thickness = 0.049”

Figure 135. Cold worked bending on shop Figure 136. Bent tube showing failure by jig showing this tube was bent to 55°. crinkling.

107

Hot worked, outer diameter = 1.25”, thickness = 0.049”

Figure 137. Hot Worked bending on Figure 138. Bent tube showing no failure. homemade die.

Hot worked, outer diameter = 1.25”, thickness = 0.049”

Figure 139. Hot Worked bending on Figure 140. Bent tube showing failure by homemade die. crinkling.

Hot worked, outer diameter = 1”, thickness = 0.049”

Figure 141. Hot Worked bending on Figure 142. Bent tube showing failure by homemade die. deformation.

108

Appendix M: Design Hazard Checklist

This appendix contains the Design Hazard Checklist.

Team: Framed Advisor: Eileen Rossman

Y N ✓  1. Will any part of the design create hazardous revolving, reciprocating, running, shearing, punching, pressing, squeezing, drawing, cutting, rolling, mixing or similar action, including pinch points and sheer points? ✓  2. Can any part of the design undergo high accelerations/decelerations? ✓  3. Will the system have any large moving masses or large forces?  ✓ 4. Will the system produce a projectile? ✓  5. Would it be possible for the system to fall under gravity creating injury?  ✓ 6. Will a user be exposed to overhanging weights as part of the design?  ✓ 7. Will the system have any sharp edges?  ✓ 8. Will any part of the electrical systems not be grounded?  ✓ 9. Will there be any large batteries or electrical voltage in the system above 40 V?  ✓ 10. Will there be any stored energy in the system such as batteries, flywheels, hanging weights or pressurized fluids?  ✓ 11. Will there be any explosive or flammable liquids, gases, or dust fuel as part of the system? ✓  12. Will the user of the design be required to exert any abnormal effort or physical posture during the use of the design? ✓  13. Will there be any materials known to be hazardous to humans involved in either the design or the manufacturing of the design?  ✓ 14. Can the system generate high levels of noise?  ✓ 15. Will the device/system be exposed to extreme environmental conditions such as fog, humidity, cold, high temperatures, etc? ✓  16. Is it possible for the system to be used in an unsafe manner?  ✓ 17. Will there be any other potential hazards not listed above? If yes, please explain on reverse.

For any hazards checked “Y” for yes, please see Table 27 on the next page for individual descriptions, corrective actions to be taken, and the date to be completed on.

109

Table 27. Description of Hazards and Planned Corrective Actions.

Planned Actual Description of Hazard Planned Corrective Action Date Date Hazardous shearing and Team members will be properly educated January – January cutting, pinch points, and on the dangers of the pinch points and April 2019 26 – shear points could other hazards that are present in the April 20 present themselves manufacturing of the bicycle. The senior during the manufacturing members and safety officers of the club of the frame. will be the leaders of these trainings. The frame will undergo The rider will be wearing safety gear such June – very high accelerations as a helmet and a five-point harness. September and decelerations during Also, there will be foam padding to 2019 testing and racing. protect the rider against the framing. The system itself will be The frame will be covered by a carbon June – a large moving mass. fiber, fiberglass, and Kevlar fairing that September When being will serve as the aerodynamic component 2019 ridden/raced, the frame and as the protection against abrasions in will experience large the event of a sliding crash. drag forces and possibly forces due to wind. Because the bike will be The rider will have extensive training time Battle two wheeled, it is on the frame. The team will assist the Mountain unstable on its own when rider in starting the vehicle for the first September upright. Therefore, the 15m of the course. The vehicle stability 2019 (date frame can easily fall due dynamics have been optimized by using TBD) to gravity when not the Patterson Control model to achieve running at high enough the most stable bike geometry. speeds. The user of the bike will The rider will be conditioned and fully Battle exert a very large trained in the bike in preparation for the Mountain amount of energy during competition. There will be an air intake September the race to move the bike that feeds the rider fresh air by use of a 2019 (date at high speeds. He will mask. TBD) be in a recumbent position that uses abdominal muscles in addition to leg muscles to power the bike. There is a possibility of Proper safety techniques will be followed, January – January exposure of hazardous and the team will be compliant with Cal April 2019 26 – materials to the team Poly Shop safety standards. April 20 during manufacturing. The system could be The rider will be trained on a version of a Battle used in an unsafe recumbent bicycle provided by Lightning Mountain manner if the rider is not Bikes. Once he is comfortable with the September properly trained and dynamics of riding a recumbent bike, he 2019 (date comfortable operating will begin the training of riding the TBD) the vehicle. competition bicycle.

110

Appendix N: Gantt Chart

This appendix contains the final, overall Gantt Chart.

111

112

113

114

115

116

Appendix O: Purchasing Excel Documents

This appendix contains purchasing excel documents.

Purchasing excel is for all frame components is shown below.

117

118

Purchasing excel for all Frame Jig components.

119

120

Purchasing excel for all Fork components.

Purchasing excel for all Fork jig components.

Purchasing excel for all testing components.

121

Purchasing excel for all tooling.

122

Appendix P: Parts to Make Excel Documents

This appendix contains an excel documenting all the components to be made in house, broken down by process or operation.

Parts to bend, miter, grind, drill, weld, etc.:

123

124

125

126

Parts to make from composites, etc.:

127

Parts to CNC machine:

128

Parts to manual machine:

129

130

Appendix Q: Setup Sheet from Front and Rear Dropouts CAM

This appendix contains the set-up sheet from machining the rear and front dropouts on the CNC mill. Shows tools, feeds and speeds, set-ups, and tool paths used.

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

Appendix R: Rider Testing Measurements

This appendix contains Table 28, containing measured values from second round of rider testing.

Table 28. Measurements from second round rider testing with physical gauges

Dimension Description Current CAD Rider Measurements (to change CAD to) Outside of knees, directly down 15.5” 17.5” from knees at highest point Shoulders 17” 18” Shins closest to knees, 20” 16.88” 17.25” back from bottom bracket

Legs top down view: 8.5” back from bottom bracket: 16.75” 12” back from bottom bracket: 16.75” 19.5” back from bottom bracket: 17.25”

Roll hoop: Shoulders: 17” Hip width: 14.5”

140

Appendix S: Failure Model and Effects Analysis

This appendix contains the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA).

141

Appendix T: Design Verification Plan

This appendix contains the design verification plan (DVPR).

142

Appendix U: Hand Calculations and FEA Verification Set Up for Bottom Bracket Deflection

This appendix contains hand calculations verifying FEA results.

143

144

145

Castigliano’s Calibration Setup

Castigliano’s Calibration Deformation Results

146

Appendix V: Vertical Loading FEA Setup

This appendix contains vertical loading FEA setup.

Results

147

148

Appendix W: Side Loading FEA Setup

This appendix contains side loading FEA setup.

149

Results

150

Appendix X: Pedal-Input Loading FEA Setup

This appendix contains the FEA set up for pedal-input loading.

Results

151

Appendix Y: Tiller Steering Approximation Derivation for Patterson Control Model

This appendix contains hand calculations for approximating the handlebar radius on a “tiller steering” recumbent as the stem length.

152

153

154

Appendix Z: Operator’s Manual

This appendix contains the operator’s manual for use of the frame. It provides instructions for the user and bystanders to conduct a pre-check and harness strap in, Battle Mountain procedures for launch, general ride (under specified conditions), catch, and emergency extraction. It also details procedures for testing days.

9.1 Pre-Check

NOTE: Prior to any use of the frame that involves a rider in the seat, ample time should be allotted to perform a pre-check that verifies that critical components are in place and members are structurally sound.

The pre-check acts as a checklist that should be 100% completed before the rider gets into the seat. Should any factors not pass this initial inspection, the test or ride will be suspended until the issue is mitigated and the pre-check is passed.

1. Bottom Support Member Bosses

Figure 143. Bottom member support bosses.

Figure 143 shows the three bosses that are welded in the bottom support members. To verify that the bosses are in place and secure, gently push and pull on the tops to confirm that there is no movement. Verify that the welds securing the bosses in the tubes are intact. The two bosses on the parallel tubes are used to mount the lap belts. Verify that belts are correctly and securely mounted on the bosses by tugging on them.

Bottom support member bosses

2. Bottom Support Member Tabs

Figure 144. Bottom member mounting tabs.

Figure 144 shows the tabs that are used to mount the anti-submarine belt in the bottom support member. Gently pull and push the tabs in each direction to confirm there is no movement. Verify that the welds securing the tabs to the tube are intact. Verify that the belt is correctly and securely mounted on the tabs by tugging on it.

Bottom support member tabs

155

3. Roll Hoop Bosses

Figure 145. Roll hoop bosses.

Figure 145 shows the bottom member of the roll hoop where the shoulder belts will be mounted using the wraparound method. To verify that the harness mounting and the harness itself is secure, pull on each belt to ensure they are tight in the length adjustment brackets.

Roll Hoop Bosses

4. Damage to Entire Frame

Conduct a visual inspection of the entire frame to check for any damage that may have resulted in deformation, deflection, or pinch and shear points. If it is possible that something will hinder or harm the rider’s body when entering or sitting, it should be addressed.

Damage to Entire Frame

9.2 Harness Strap-In and Release

NOTE: The harness strap-in and release process is one that the rider should be extremely familiar with prior to riding the vehicle. They should be able to both secure and release themselves quickly and independently in the event of an emergency.

9.2.1 Strap-In

1. Bring over the left lap belt that has the tongue part of the latch, as shown in Figure 146.

Figure 146. Strap-in step 1.

156

2. Bring down the left shoulder belt and slide the latch tongue through, as shown in Figure 147.

Figure 147. Strap-in step 2.

3. Bring up anti-submarine belt and slide the latch tongue through, as shown in Figure 148.

Figure 148. Strap-in step 3.

4. Bring down the right shoulder belt and slide the latch tongue through, as shown in Figure 149.

Figure 149. Strap-in step 4.

5. Bring over the right lap belt with the latch mechanism and hook and secure it onto the tongue, as shown in Figure 150.

Figure 150. Strap-in step 5.

157

6. The latch mechanism should be assembled and secure, appearing as in Figure 151.

Figure 151. Assembled latch mechanism.

9.2.2 Release

1. Lift up the hook on the right lap belt to release the lock and allow all belts to slide off the tongue, as shown in Figure 152.

Figure 152. Release step 1.

2. The latch mechanism should be released, appearing as in Figure 153.

Figure 153. Released latch mechanism.

158

9.3 Battle Mountain Procedures

The procedures for the vehicle and frame use at Battle Mountain are detailed below.

9.3.1 Launch

NOTE: The team shall verify that there are trained team members or trained members of the race catch team present at catch before launching the vehicle.

This procedure requires 4-6 trained team members and the vehicle’s rider.

Roll the vehicle into the starting line queue in the order specified by the pre-race meeting. Have the rider enter the vehicle when they are comfortable, but not later than at least 3 vehicles back from the starting line. Have two trained team members, one on each side (left and right) of the bike, support the vehicle from the fairing outside the roll hoop and outside the front of the side supports. Have two other trained team members, one on each side (left and right) of the bike, assist the rider into entering the vehicle. With the fairing door removed, the rider will stand on the seat of the vehicle to enter. He will then crouch down and rotate his shoulders, so he is perpendicular to the long axis of the vehicle. Once his shoulders clear the top side supports, he will rotate into position, facing forward in the bike. He will then sit down, and extend his legs to reach the pedals underneath both the top and middle side supports, and clip in. The final seated position is shown in Figure 154.

Figure 154. Rider in vehicle prior to putting on door, Battle Mountain 2018.

Two other trained team members should be standing by with water and shade, as needed. The door shall then be slid into the correct alignment on the vehicle and firmly latched. Two trained team members, one on each side (left and right) of the bike, will tape over the door seams as shown in Figure 155.

159

Figure 155. Bikes getting taped, at Battle Mountain 2018.

When it is time for the team’s rider to launch, roll the vehicle with the rider up to the first set of starting lines. There are many start lines, all marked 15m apart, extending down the first part of the course. Thus, if a bike is dropped, the team can simply move up to the next set of 15m lines and attempt to start again.

Once the team is given the start call, they have 2 minutes (120 seconds, per Battle Mountain regulation) to successfully launch their rider into sole control of the vehicle.

NOTE: Only two team members can have tactile contact with the vehicle during launch, per Battle Mountain regulation.

Two (maximum) trained team members, one on each side (left and right) of the bike, will stabilize the bike from falling over at a dead stop. When the start signal is noted, the rider will be relayed this information via the rider’s radio. The rider will begin pedaling and as the bike begins to move forward the two team members will continue to move alongside it and stabilize it left and right. Then will inform the rider of leaning and other corrections as needed. This process is shown in Figure 156.

Figure 156. Team members running alongside a launched vehicle, Battle Mountain 2018.

160

NOTE: The team shall have a maximum of 15m, or roughly 50 feet, in which they can have tactile contact with the vehicle, per Battle Mountain regulation. If longer contact is maintained, the run will not be recognized as a valid run for records.

The team will continue stabilizing the bike throughout the 15m launch zone. Once the second line (located 15m in front of the previous launch line) on the ground is passed, all team members must no longer have contact with the bike. All hands must be off the vehicle, and the team members shall withdraw and enter the chase car.

NOTE: At NO point during the launch process (once the rider is pedaling off the first start line), shall team members be allowed to push or otherwise contribute to the forward movement of the vehicle, per Battle Mountain regulation.

9.3.2 Race Riding

NOTE: At NO point may a chase car pass any moving bike.

This procedure requires 2 trained team members and the vehicle’s rider.

At least two dedicated chase vehicle team members will be present, one driving the vehicle and the other operating the rider communication radio. The team members from launch will also be in the chase vehicle to move to catch. During racing at Battle Mountain, all vehicles shall stay confined to the right side of the road. The chase car shall stay on the left side of the road.

NOTE: The chase car may not get closer than 100m to any moving bike.

Each distance from the finish line is marked with a flag. The distance listed on the flags is distance to the FINISH LINE, shown in Figure 157. Thus, the flag labeled 200m is the START of the time traps. The finish line is marked with banner flags.

Figure 157. The Glowworm, tandem recumbent record holder, finishing a run.

If at any point an issue arises, the rider will notify (if possible) the team via the rider’s two-way radio. They will then pull off the course to the far right.

161

9.3.3 Catch

This procedure requires 4-6 trained team members and the vehicle’s rider.

After the 200m speed traps, the rider will have roughly 1 mile to cool down. The catch zone, denoted by large banner flags, is roughly 40-50 feet long. The rider will enter the catch zone, denoted with banner flags, coasting at under 10mph. The rider will feather the brakes to slow and stop. As the vehicle enters the catch zone, 2 - 4 trained members will position themselves on either side (right and left) of the vehicle. The team members should radio the rider and apply some force (i.e., slap) the fairing to warn the rider the catch team has support of his vehicle. When the vehicle slows, the catch team will reach out hands to stabilize the bike as it continues to slow down. When the vehicle comes to a complete stop, two trained team members will support the vehicle from falling on its side. Two other trained members will remove the tape from the fairing door seam and slide the door off.

Figure 158. Door removed, Primal 2.

It shall be the first goal of the catch team to ensure the rider is in good health. The door shall be handed off to another trained member, and the rider questioned to assure he is lucid. Two other members will assist the rider in unclipping, standing up, and getting out of the vehicle with the other two members keeping the bike upright. The rider will then move to the trainer inside the chase vehicle to warm down, and the team members shall remove the vehicle from the road. This is shown in Figure 158.

NOTE: Since there are vehicles launched every two minutes, it shall be the goal of the team to remove the rider and vehicle from the road as quickly and efficiently as possible.

162

9.4 Emergency Extraction of Rider

In the event of a crash or rider emergency, there shall be a way to safely remove the rider from the enclosed bike. The rider will be wearing a helmet and a safety harness; therefore, his immediate extraction from the vehicle may be impeded. In the event of a crash, the team will contact the rider via the two-way radio to assess his condition and ask safety protocol questions. Prior to any riding of the bike, the rider will be fully trained to remain in the vehicle and await the arrival of emergency personnel in a crash scenario. This training will allow the first responders to safely remove the rider in an effort to preserve a potential spinal injury case. To remove the rider from the bike, the team or first responders will remove the taping that seals the fairing. Then, the front of the fairing will be removed, and the rider will be exposed. Next, the rider will be instructed to remain still while the safety personnel evaluate him and proceed to carefully extract him from the vehicle.

In the event of a crash during rider testing, the club members present will be responsible for properly aiding the rider. Therefore, team members and rider will be trained prior to conducting any event of testing. This will ensure that each party involved knows exactly what to do to keep the rider’s safety paramount. During the testing phase, the rider will not always be enclosed in the fairing, so rider extraction techniques will vary. When the fairing is not installed around the rider, the speed at which the rider is allowed to ride is limited to below 30mph.

To aid in rider and safety personnel training, a table general crash protocols based on the type of crash incurred as seen in Table 29 below.

Table 29. Procedures for rider and safety personnel for each crash type

Crash Type Protocol Priority Personnel Tip-over (low speed) 1. Contact rider for status 1. Team Members (if no First 2. If responds in affirmative, upright the Responders Present) vehicle 2. First Responders 3. If hurt, proceed with rider’s instruction Rollover or Sliding 1. Contact rider for status 1. First Responders 2. If responsive, continue 2. Team Members communication and give instruction to remain still 3. Carefully remove fairing (if installed) 4. Stabilize rider’s neck to ensure safe extraction 5. Proceed to remove rider from bike

163

9.5 Testing Procedures

Test riding the Human Powered Vehicle will need at least five in order to run. The first step in preparing for a ride is passing the pre-check. A copy of the club’s pre ride check can be seen below, in 9.6 Pre- Test Check List. The first section of this checklist involves checking environmental factors. These environmental factors include wind, length of run, condition of road, debris present on road, traffic, and the interaction between the light and the vehicle’s vision system. If necessary, measures should be taken to mitigate risks associated with unsafe conditions; removing debris, marking obstacles, and directing traffic are examples of these measures. Once all of these factors have been evaluated and deemed acceptable by the team, the next check is to check the bike setup. Before the rider is allowed to start a practice run the bike must be inspected. There are eight subsystems that must be checked and prepped in order to start a ride, these include: frame, drivetrain, fairing, braking, breathing, vision, steering, and wheels. The frame subsystem specifically requires visual inspection of all of the welds and joints and an inspection of the racing harness. After establishing that the vehicle and track are safe, the team must ensure that the personal on site know their responsibilities. If riding will be longer than 0.25 miles, a chase vehicle will be used to help assist the rider in the event of a mid-ride emergency. This chase vehicle must be equipped with a first aid kit and at least one individual trained in first aid. This vehicle must also be equipped with a two-way radio to help communicate with the rider. Communication, driving, and passing procedures will all be verbally clarified before the vehicles start their run The launch and catch teams must also be made aware of their responsibilities. The launch team will help the rider into the vehicle, ensure that the rider remains cool before the run, and also close the vehicle door before the vehicle launches if riding with a fairing. The launch team is also responsible for starting the bike. This involves holding the bike upright before the run gets underway and running with the bike during the start as the vehicle is rather unstable at low speeds. Once the vehicle ‘outruns’ the launch team, their responsibilities end. The catch team is the team responsible for stopping the bike and helping the rider exit the vehicle. The first of these responsibilities is the more critical of the two. It involved signaling the rider to let him know when and how hard to brake and then actually catching the vehicle as it comes to a stop. This team must make sure that they are supporting the fairing at or near the roll hoop so as to avoid damaging the fairing. Once the vehicle is caught, it is the responsibility of the catch team to remove the door as quickly as possible and help the rider exit the vehicle. This exit will me more important on longer rides and hotter days as he will likely have trapped quite a lot of heat inside of the frame. In order to ride the Human Powered Vehicle at speeds higher than 30 miles per hour a number of requirements must first be met. Firstly, the vehicle must have been proven road worthy by passing the pre-check. Next, environmental factors must be evaluated. These environmental factors include wind, length of run, condition of road, debris present on road, traffic, and the interaction between the light and the vehicle’s vision system. Once all of these factors have been evaluated and deemed acceptable by the team then regular riding can commence. Before the rider is allowed to start a practice run on a non-competition raceway there must also be measures taken to prep the road to be tested on. The first of these is to visually inspect the road for foreign object debris (FOD). This will be done by a team of two individuals driving along the road at less than 10 miles per hour and visually checking for FOD. If there is any FOD found along the road then it will be removed by the individual who is not driving. The pre-test checklist is shown below, in 9.6 Pre-Test Check List.

164

9.6 Pre-Test Check List

9.6.1 Environmental Conditions

• Visibility o Verify that there is at least one mile of visibility through the air o Verify that the camera is functional and surface is clean o Verify that all individuals not riding are wearing reflective safety vests • Road Conditions o Verify either on foot or on a bicycle that there is no debris larger than 2” in diameter o Mark any large potholes on the road with cones • Traffic o Ensure that traffic is stopped while riding on open roads • Weather o Verify that wind is kept to a safe level while riding o Verify that the heat index present at the location of riding is under 100 9.6.2 Bike Setup

• Frame o Visually inspect frame for damages including cracks, deformations, or scratches o Ensure that all racing harness bolts are tight and secure

• Drivetrain o Ensure that all drivetrain bolts and fasteners are tight and secure o Shift drivetrain to check for unusual noises and/or behaviors o Place drivetrain in lowest gear o Ensure that appropriate pedals are being used

• Fairing o Ensure that all fairing bolts and fasteners are tight and secure o Visually inspect fairing for damage including cracks or deformations

• Braking o Ensure that all braking bolts and fasteners are tight and secure o Check that brake lever feels firm and has an appropriate amount of travel o Rotate the rear wheel and check that there is no brake rub present o Visually inspect rotors and pads for cleanliness

• Breathing o Check that the breathing system connections are secure at the mask and at the fairing o Visually inspect breather hose for cracks or leaks

• Vision o Ensure that all vison fasteners and electrical connections are tight and secure o Visually inspect wiring for frays, entanglement, and improper routing o Check camera functionality through display screens o Visually inspect cameras for debris, moisture, and other obstructions

165

o Clean the windows if necessary, using anti-fog cleaner

• Steering o Ensure that all steering bolts and fasteners are tight and secure o Check steering lockout to ensure that front wheel does not contact the fairing o Check adjustment of handlebar length and angle

• Wheels and Tires o Ensure that all axle bolts and fasteners are tight and secure o Visually inspect tires and wheels for damage or oils/chemicals o Check that tire pressure is at an appropriate level.

9.6.3 Chase Vehicle

• First Aid o Ensure that chase vehicle is equipped with first aid kit o Ensure that one individual in chase team is first aid certified

• Communications o Check two-way radios for battery life and range o Go over radio communications phrases and procedures with rider and radio operator

• Driver o Go over emergency passing procedures with rider and chase vehicle driver o Ensure that the driver is aware that he is always to maintain a 50-100 meter following distance behind the rider o Ensure that drives headlights and high beams are on to increase visibility

166

Appendix AA: Testing Procedure for Experimentally Determining Center of Gravity and Radius of Gyration

The following is the testing procedure used to find center of gravity and radius of gyration. This is the same procedure as used in ME 441 Single Track Vehicle Design at Cal Poly. These tests were completed in the final frame with Josh, the chosen rider, strapped into the final vehicle’s seat.

2) Locating the Center of Mass or CG or Center of Gravity: Please measure it at 5 D values, to get an average value and standard deviation. Last week, most of the geometric dimensions were measured from a few bicycles, but correct application of any of the stability models (Lowell & McKell, and soon the Patterson Control Model) requires knowledge of the mass properties. For this, the following variables will be used (see next page):

167

3) Determining the Roll Moment of Inertia of the Rider/Bicycle: Please measure it 5 times, to get an average value and standard deviation.

168

Also, some characteristics of the swing from John Fabijanic:

169

Appendix AB: Center of Gravity Hand Calculations and Schematics

This appendix contains hand calculations for experimentally determining center of gravity.

170

171

Appendix AC: Radius of Gyration Hand Calculations and Schematics

This appendix contains hand calculations for experimentally determining radius of gyration.

172

173

174

Appendix AD: Center of Gravity Testing- Measurements and Results

This appendix contains testing results and excel calculations for determining center of gravity. It also contains uncertainty analysis for center of gravity measurements.

Mass Properties of HPV Frame - May 2019 These values are calculated with the frame, the rider, and the drivetrain. The fairing is not included. Height of scales off is ground: 2.5".

Horizontal Position of Center of Gravity See picture to right for variable representations

Measured Values Variable Measurement Units Measurement Tool Uncertainty (Uncertainty/ Measurement)^2 Wheelbase A 4.708333333 ft Park Tool tape measure 0.00260417 3.05917E-07 Weight front Wf 151 lbf Longacre Racing scale 0.5 1.09644E-05 Weight total Wtot 250 lbf Longacre Racing scale 0.5 0.000004 Radius of Wheel Rw 1.072916667 ft Park Tool tape measure 0.00260417 5.89122E-06

Calculated Values Variable Value Units Root Sum Square Uncertainty Hor. Dist. Rear Axle to CG B 2.843833333 ft 0.003907729 Bm 0.8668004 m

Vertical Position of Center of Gravity Average of 5 measurements taken to find final height of CG. Inclined at 5 different angles.

Measured Values- Round 1 Variable Measurement Units Measurement Tool Uncertainty (Uncertainty/ Measurement)^2 Angle of inclination theta1 20.66104163 degrees Calculated value (n/a) n/a Hor. Dist. Rear axel to front axel X1 4.8125 ft Park Tool Tape measure 0.00260417 2.92817E-07 Ver. Dist. Front axel to ground D1 1.697916667 ft Park Tool Tape measure 0.00260417 2.35237E-06 Weight front at angle theta Wftheta1 146 lbf Calculated value (n/a) n/a Weight rear at angle theta Wrtheta1 104 lbf Longarce Racing scale 0.5 2.31139E-05 Calculated Values- Round 1 Variable Value Units Root Sum Square Uncertainty Ver. Dist. CG above axel height h1 0.26690184 ft 0.00615178 Ver. Dist. CG above ground hg1 1.339818507 ft

Measured Values- Round 2 Variable Measurement Units Angle of inclination theta2 23.00782992 degrees Hor. Dist. Rear axel to front axel X2 4.770833333 ft Ver. Dist. Fr ont axel to ground D2 1.864583333 ft Weight front at angle theta Wftheta2 138 lbf Weight rea r at angle theta Wrtheta2 112 lbf

Calculated Values- Round 2 Variable Value Units Ver. Dist. CG above axel height h2 0.626445065 ft Ver. Dist. CG above ground hg2 1.699361732 ft

Measured Values- Round 3 Variable Measurement Units Angle of inclination theta3 25.48087219 degrees Hor. Dist. Rear axel to front axel X3 4.625 ft Ver. Dist. Front axel to ground D3 1.989583333 ft Weight front at angle theta Wftheta3 137 lbf Weight rear at angle theta Wrtheta3 113 lbf

Calculated Values- Round 3 Variable Value Units Ver. Dist. CG above axel height h3 0.612921466 ft Ver. Dist. CG above ground hg3 1.685838133 ft

175

Measured Values- Round 4 Variable Measurement Units Angle of inclination theta4 26.76017152 degrees Hor. Dist. Rear axel to front axel X4 4.604166667 ft Ver. Dist. Front axel to ground D4 2.072916667 ft Weight front at angle theta Wftheta4 136 lbf Weight rear at angle theta Wrtheta4 114 lbf

Calculated Values- Round 4 Variable Value Units Ver. Dist. CG above axel height h4 0.627462312 ft Ver. Dist. CG above ground hg4 1.700378978 ft

Measured Values- Round 5 Variable Measurement Units Angle of inclination theta5 29.09991324 degrees Hor. Dist. Rear axel to front axel X5 4.5625 ft Ver. Dist. Front axel to ground D5 2.21875 ft Weight front at angle theta Wftheta5 135.5 lbf Weight rear at angle theta Wrtheta5 114.5 lbf

Calculated Values- Round 5 Variable Value Units Ver. Dist. CG above axel height h5 0.600279343 ft Ver. Dist. CG above ground hg5 1.673196009 ft

Average vertical Position of CG above ground hgavg 1.619718672 ft hgm 0.493690251 m

176

Appendix AE: Uncertainty Analysis Hand Calculations

This appendix contains hand calculations for center of gravity uncertainty analysis.

177

Appendix AF: Radius of Gyration Testing- Measurements and Results

This appendix contains testing results and excel calculations for determining radius of gyration.

Mass Properties of HPV Frame - May 2019 These values are calculated with the frame, the rider, and the drivetrain. The fairing is not included.

Longitudinal Radius of Gyration about Center of Gravity

Given Values: Swing Variable Value Units I about pivot Io,old 33.91 slug*ft^2 I about pivot converted Io 1091.902 lbm*ft^2 Vert. dist. Pivot to swing CG Rps 3.692 ft Vert. dist. Pivot to rail Rpr 5.375 ft Swing Weight Ws 63.5 lbf

Measured Values Average of 5 measurements taken to find final period. Time to swing 10 times measured.

Variable 10 swings time 1 10 swings time 2 10 swings time avg 1 swing time Units Period 1 T1 22.69 22.7 22.695 2.2695 sec Period 2 T2 23.13 22.55 22.84 2.284 sec Period 3 T3 22.93 22.65 22.79 2.279 sec Period 4 T4 22.73 22.6 22.665 2.2665 sec Period 5 T5 22.83 22.61 22.72 2.272 sec Avg Period Tavg 22.742 2.2742 sec

178

Calculated Values: Isystem Calculates roll moment of inertia about center of mass of bike+ rider+ swing system. System refers to the swing + rider & bike.

Variable Value Units Rider and Bike Weight Wrb 250 lbf Rider and Bike Mass Mrb 250 lbm Swing Mass Ms 63.5 lbm Mass Total (swing, rider, bike) Mtot 313.5 lbm Gravity g 32.2 ft/s^2 Vert. dist. Pivot point to cg of bike+ rider Rrb 3.755281328 ft Equivalent cg of bike+ rider + swing Rsys 3.742463579 ft Roll M.o.I. about cg of system Isys 4949.354632 lbm*ft^2

Calculated Values: md^2 for PAT Calculates the md^2 term to translate M.o.I. about the bike's cg to M.o.I. of the bike about the swing's pivot point.

Variable Value Units md^2 mdd 3525.534463 lbm*ft^2

Calculated Values: Ibike,rider Calculates roll moment of inertia about center of mass of bike+ rider system. This is then used in the final radius of gyration calculation.

Variable Value Units Roll M.o.I. about cg of bike+ rider Ib 331.918169 lbm*ft^2

Calculated Values: Rx Calculates radius of gyration about center of mass of bike+ rider system. This is then used as an input to the Patterson Control Model.

Variable Value Units Radius of Gyration about Longitudinal Axis Rx 1.152246795 ft Rx 0.351204823 m

179

Appendix AG: Detail Drawings

The following four pages include the indented bill of materials including all drawings. The following pages are a compilation of all detail drawings and assembly drawings for the Human Powered Vehicle Frame project.

180

181

182

183 100 mm

15°

28

Wheelbase: 1.43 m

Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TITLE: REV A04-05-001-FRAMEASSEMBLY 00 Start Date: 1/7/19 SCALE: 1:17 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. ITEM NO. PART NUMBER QTY. 1 04-A01-005-SEATBOSS 3 04-A01-007- 2 SEATBOSSLONG 2 04-A01-002- 3 REARDROPOUTS 2 4 04-A01-001-FRAME 1 04-A01-006- 5 HARNESSTABS 2 04-A01-004- 6 MIDDRIVEBOSS 4 4

3

6

2

5 1

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A05-001- Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAMEONLYASSEMBLY 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:8 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1 NOTE: ALL METRIC DIMENSIONS DESIGNATED WITH "mm" ALL METRIC TOLERANCES ARE AS FOLLOWS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: XX.XX 0.10 XX.X 1 6 REQUIRED; 4 for MID DRIVE MOUNTING 2 for CHAIN TENSIONER MOUNTING M5 x 0.8 TAPPED HOLE Note: Start tap from large diameter end

7.00 mm

.125 1.00

10.00 mm

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: 04-A01-004-MIDDRIVEBOSS KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: KEYANNA HENDERSON TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/16/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 3:1 MATERIAL: 1018 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. NOTE: Break all sharp edges QUANTITY: 2

M6x1 Through all

.375

1.075 .125 .500

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A01-005-SEATBOSS ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 3:1 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Outside profile and hole locations defined by model to be waterjet. Hole final dimensions to be drilled post water jet operation. Stock: 13 GA Steel Plate Quantity: 2

R.500 Clear for 7/16-20

1.250

1.000

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A01-006-HARNESSTABS ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 2:1 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. NOTE: Break all sharp edges QUANTITY: 2

M6x1.0 Through all

.375

1.375 .125 .500

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A01-007- ANGULAR: BEND 2 SEATBOSSLONG 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 3:1 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Rear Stock: 4130 Chromoly 7/8" OD .049" wall

8.71

80°

11.71 A R4.00 R4.00 Rear

42° .375 4.29

10.42

DETAIL A SCALE 1 : 2

Fork Steerer Tube UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 BottomBentSupport 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:6 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: 4130 Chromoly 1.5" OD .049" wall Headtube Quantity: 1 4.50

15.2°

SCALE: 1:8 46.9° R6.00

7.57

4.22

Bottom bracket R6.00

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 BottomBracketSupport 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/13/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:4 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: 4130 Chromoly .875" OD .035" wall

6.50

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 BottomHorizontal 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: 4130 Chromoly 1" OD .035" wall

19.000

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 FairingSupport 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Miters showin in miter Stock: drawing. Overall rough cut 4130 Chromoly lenth same of righ and left 3/4" OD sides .035" QTY: 2

BOTTOM BRACKET SIDE ROLL BAR SIDE

12.25

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 RearTriangleLowerInnerRig 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 ht THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Miters showin in miter Stock: drawing. Overall rough cut 4130 Chromoly lenth same of righ and left 3/4" OD sides .035" QTY: 2

ROLL BAR SIDE BOTTOM BRACKET SIDE

12.63

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 RearTriangleLowerOuterRi 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 ght THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Miters showin in miter Stock: drawing. Overall rough cut 4130 Chromoly lenth same of righ and left 3/4" OD sides .035" QTY: 2

BOTTOM BRACKET SIDE ROLL BAR SIDE

16.63

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 RearTriangleUpperRight 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: 4130 Chromoly PART IS SYMETRICAL ABOUT CENTERLINE 1.25" OD .035"

15.50

6.69

2X 3/8"

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 RollBarHorizontalLower 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: 4130 Chromoly 1" OD .035"

13.13

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 RollBarHorizontalUpper 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. R5.00

Stock: 4130 Chromoly 1.25" OD .035" wall

130 Note: Part is symmetric about axis 11.10 shown.

Quantity: 2

53.8

R5.00

5.95

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 RollhoopUpper 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/21/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:5 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. NOTE: ALL METRIC DIMENSIONS DESIGNATED WITH "mm". ALL METRIC TOLERANCES ARE AS FOLLOWS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: XX.XX 0.10 XX.X 1

4 REQUIRED

19.00mm FIT WITH HUB SPACERS

1.245 1.50 1.375

2XR.015 CLEAR FOR M8x1.25 .118 2.040

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-002- 00 ANGULAR: BEND 2 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 REARDROPOUTS THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 12/31/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Rollbar 8.40 28.94 Bottom Bracket

19.8° 41.9 R4.00 Rollbar Bottom Bracket

8.01

R4.00 51.2 21.5°

38.6° 7.31 Quantity: 1

Stock: 4130 Chromoly R4.00 1" OD .035" UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 1 MiddleSideSupportLeft 00 Checked By: Chris Scarborough TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.035 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/27/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:8 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. R4.00 28.94 Rollbar 8.40

19.8°

Rollbar Bottom Bottom bracket bracket R4.00 41.9 21.5°

8.01

51.2 38.6° R4.00

Quantity: 1 7.22

Stock: 4130 Chromoly 1" OD .035" UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 MiddleSideSupportRight 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/5/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:8 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Rollbar Stock: 4130 Chromoly Rollbar 1" OD .035" wall 8.51 R4.00 Quantity: 1 34.6°

Rollbar

23.20

99.4

Headtube

45.3° R4.00

9.86 Headtube Headtube

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 1 TopSideSupportLeft 00 Checked By: Chris Scarborough TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.035 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/20/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:8 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: 4130 Chromoly 1" OD Rollbar .035" wall Rollbar Quantity: 1 R4.00 8.31

34.6°

Rollbar

23.20 99.4

Headtube

45.3°

R4.00

9.66 Headtube Headtube UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 1 TopSideSupportRight 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.035 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/20/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:8 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Lower

R4.00 1.63

59°

Stock: 4130 Chromoly 7/8" OD .035" wall

3.61

Upper (top, closer to headtube)

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 BentTrussLeft 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 1.58 Lower

R4.00

59°

Stock: 4130 Chromoly 7/8" OD .035" wall

3.61

Upper (top, closer to headtube)

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 BentTrussRight 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/5/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Headtube 8.91 (rear)

R4.00

Note: Final hole positions located with frame jig.

90 Stock: 4130 Chromoly 7/8" OD .035" wall

2.24

SCALE: 1:4 Front

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 MidDriveTrussRight 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/5/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 8.37 44°

4.04

R4.00

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 ShoulderTrussSupportLeft 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. R4.00

3.94

Stock: 8.26 4130 Chromoly 7/8" OD .035" wall 44

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 ShoulderSupportTrussRight 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/5/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Miters shown in miter drawings. Overall rough cut length same for right and left sides. QUANTITY: 2 9.35

Stock: 4130 Chromoly 7/8" OD .035" Upper Lower

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 StraightTrussFrontRight 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/5/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Miters shown in miter drawings. Overall rough cut length same for right and left sides. QUANTITY: 2

13.92

Stock: 4130 Chromoly 7/8" OD .035"

Upper Lower

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 StraightTrussMidRight 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/5/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Miters shown in miter drawings. Overall rough cut length same for right and left sides. QUANTITY: 2 Stock: 4130 Chromoly 7/8" OD .035" wall

Upper Lower

11.00

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A01-001-FRAME- ANGULAR: BEND 2 StraightTrussRearRight 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/5/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. ITEM NO. SUB ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTION 1 FRAME FRAME WELDMENT PARTS TO BE TACKED TO 2 BASE WELDING TABLE 3 REAR END REAR TRIANGLE FIXTURING 4 PILLAR PARTS ATTAHED TO PILLAR 5 FRONT END FRONT END FIXTURING DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLYNEW 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/29/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:10 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 1 OF 7

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 1

ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY. 1 04-A01-001-FRAME FRAME WELDMENT 1 DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLYNEW 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/29/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:10 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 2 OF 7

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 18

19 5

ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY. 5 04-A03-001-JIG_BOTTOM 4 X 4 STEEL JIG BASE 1 04-A03-013- 18 PILLARTOPSIDESUPPORT TOP SIDE SUPPORT PILLAR 2 04-A03-011- 19 PILLARMIDSIDESUPPORT MID SIDE SUPPORT PILLAR 2 DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLYNEW 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/29/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:10 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 3 OF 7

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 2 4

21

3

ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY. 04-A03-002- 2 TUBE_BLOCK_1.25 TUBING BLOCK TOPS 3 04-A03-002- 3 TUBE_BLOCK_1.25BOTTOM TUBING BLOCK BOTTOMS 3 04-A03-010- 4 DUMMYREARHUB REAR HUB SPACER 1 21 90128A948 FASTENERS 12 DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLYNEW 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/29/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:4 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 4 OF 7

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 7 6 22 10

11 20 ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY. 13 6 04-A03-001-JIG_PILLAR MAIN 1 SUPPORT 7 04-A03-008-TOP_PLATE SUPPORT 2 PLATE 12 1/2-13 24 10 04-A03-005-HEAD_TUBE_ROD THREADED 1 ROD HEAD TUBE 11 04-A03-006-HEAD_TUBE_MOUNT LOCATING 2 23 SPACER 25 12 04-A03-006- RIDGIDITY 1 HEAD_TUBE_MOUNT_SPACER SPACER 13 04-A03-007-CONICAL_PLUG HEAD TUBE 2 PLUG 14 04-A01-004-MIDDRIVEBOSS MID-DRIVE 4 14 27 BOSS 15 04-A03-009-MID_DRIVE_SPACER1 MID-DRIVE 4 SPACER 15 20 04-A03-015-DOWELPIN LOCATING 4 DOWEL PIN 26 22 92865A622 3/8 - 24 36 SPACERS 23 94846A525 1/2 -13 NUTS 8 24 91290A272 M5 4 FASTENERS 25 92497A300 M5 NUTS 4 26 04-A03-016-PILLAR_BASE JIG PILLAR 1 BASE JIG PILLAR 27 04-A03-014-JIGPILLARPLATE WELDED 1 PLATE DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLYNEW 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/29/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:8 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 5 OF 7

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 22 9

8

17

16

ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY. FRONT LOCATION 8 04-A03-003-FRONT_PLATE PLATE 2 BOTTOM BRACKET 9 04-A03-004-BB_PLUG PLUG 2 04-A03-012- CANTILEVER HEIGHT 16 FAIRINGCANTILEVERSPACER SPACER 1 CANTILEVER TUBE 17 04-A03-002-TUBE_BLOCK_1.0 BLOCK 1 22 92865A622 3/8-24 FASTENERS 36 DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLYNEW 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/29/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:5 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 6 OF 7

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. WELDING TABLE LAYOUT Note: Pillar Side Supports (4) will be tac'd to table. Jig base will be clamped to end of table and tac'd on other side. Jig base will be leveld. Welding table will be leveled.

PILLAR TOP SIDE SUPPORT PILLAR MID SIDE SUPPORT

14.28 REAR AXLE

ROLL BAR BOTTOM BRACKET

17.07 25.55

32.28

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLYNEW 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:12 MATERIAL: n/a 7 OF 7

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Hole locations and Stock: dimensions 88.000 Steel the same 4"x4" Square tube on left and 74.000 .25" wall right sides

4X 3/8-24 .750

2.500 2.500 12X #10-32 3.190 4X 3/8-24 29.970 2.000 1.000 1.620 1.250

1.250 6.000 .750 1.620 1.250 11.600

48.000 FRONT REAR

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-001-JIG_BOTTOM Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: KEYANNA HENDERSON TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/24/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:20 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. TOP 2.50 Stock: Steel 1.25 4"x4" Square tube 2 x .25 .25" wall .75

NOTE: All hole dimensions and positions 2.50 same for right and left sides 8 x 3/8 - 24 11.00 8.50

23.75

1.25 2.50 SCALE: 1:8

9.50

BOTTOM UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: Keyanna Henderson 04-A03-001-JIG_PILLAR ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: Kyra Schmidt TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/24/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:5 MATERIAL: Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 4 x CLEAR FOR #10-32 CLEAR FOR 5/16 .190 3 REQUIRED

2.000 1.250

.375

.190 1.620

R.625

1.000

1.000 2.000 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-002- Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON ANGULAR: BEND 2 TUBE_BLOCK_1.25BOTTOM 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/24/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Outside profile and hole locations defined by model to be waterjet. Hole final dimensions to be drilled post water jet operation.

5X CLEAR FOR 3/8-24 10.56

2 REQUIRED

Stock: Steel 5.00 12"x7" Plate .25" thick

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-003-FRONT_PLATE Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: KEYANNA HENDERSON TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/21/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:3 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. SIZED TO FIT BOTTOM BRACKET. CHECK SIZING AGAINST BOTTOM BRACKET WHILE MACHINING 1.340

QUANTITY: 2

3/8 - 24 1.25

.625

2.25 1.63

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 BB PLUG Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/22/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 2X .150 2 REQUIRED

Note: Make Head Tube Mounts and Head Tube Mount Spacer as close to same length as 4.000 possible. All holes bottoming tapped.

CLEAR FOR 1/2-20

1.25

.812

1.000

2X 3/8-24 UNF 1.00

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-006- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 HEAD_TUBE_MOUNT 00 Checked By: KEYANNA HENDERSON TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/16/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 6061 ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Make Head Tube Mounts and Head Tube Mount Spacer as close to same length as possible. All holes bottoming tapped.

4.000 1.00

2X 3/8-24 UNF 1.000

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-006- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 HEAD_TUBE_MOUNT_SPAC 00 Checked By: KEYANNA HENDERSON TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 ER THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/16/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 6061 ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 2 REQUIRED

CLEARANCE FOR 1/2-13 THREADED ROD

2.00

.50

30°

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-007- ANGULAR: BEND 2 CONICAL_PLUG 00 Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/22/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 2:1 MATERIAL: 6061 ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 2X .250 FIT WITH 1/4" DOWEL PIN

8X CLEAR FOR 3/8-24 3X CLEAR FOR 3/8-24

Note: Outside profile and hole locations defined by model to be 15.00 waterjet. Hole final dimensions to be drilled post water jet operation.

2X CLEAR FOR M5

2 REQUIRED

18.00 Stock: Steel 18"x15" Plate .25" thick UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-008-TOP_PLATE Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/20/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:4 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 4 REQUIRED

Note: Makeall 4 as close to the same .880 length as possible.

CLEAR FOR M5 .75

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-009- ANGULAR: BEND 2 MID_DRIVE_SPACER1 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/16/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 2:1 MATERIAL: 6061 ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. NOTE: ALL METRIC DIMENSIONS DESIGNATED WITH "mm". ALL METRIC TOLERANCES ARE AS FOLLOWS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: XX.XX 0.10 XX.X 1

1.25 2X 19.00mm

2X.500 103.00mm 2X M8x1.25 40.0mm

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-010- ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 DUMMYREARHUB THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/1/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 6061 Al 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. NOTE: METRIC

34.95

12.71 34.85 2X 19.00 12.61 FIT WITH DROPOUT SLOTS

A

A SECTION A-A

2X M8x1.25 40.0 mm

113.00

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN TITLE: MILLIMETERS. REV TOLERANCES: Drawn By: 04-A03-011- KYRA SCHMIDT ONE PLACE DECIMAL: 1 DUMMYFRONTAXLE 00 TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.10 Checked By: XXXXXX TOLERANCING PER: MMC Start Date: 1/20/19 SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 6061 ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 2 REQUIRED

Stock: Steel 19 2"x2" Square tube .125" wall

15.97

Note: Miters shown in miter drawing

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-011- ANGULAR: BEND 2 PILLARMIDSIDESUPPORT 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/16/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:4 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. LEFT SIDE

14.005

REAR Half circles FRONT denote inside of bike, rider's perspective SCALE: 1:5

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-011- ANGULAR: BEND 2 PILLARMIDSIDESUPPORT- 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 mitersLEFT THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/17/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. RIGHT SIDE

14.005

REAR Half circles FRONT denote outside of bike, rider's perspective SCALE: 1:5

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-011- ANGULAR: BEND 2 PILLARMIDSIDESUPPORT- 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 RIGHT-miters THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/17/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: Steel 2"x3" Square tube .125" wall

4.80

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-012- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 FAIRINGCANTILEVERSPACE 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 R THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/21/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 2 REQUIRED 15°

Stock: Steel 2"x2" Square tube .125" wall

21.97

Note: Miters shown in miter drawing

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-013- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 PILLARTOPSIDESUPPORT 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/20/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:5 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. LEFT SIDE

20.000

Half circles denote outside of bike, rider's perspective REAR FRONT Half circles denote inside of bike, rider's perspective

SCALE: 1:5

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-013- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 PILLARTOPSIDESUPPORT- 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 mitersLEFT THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/20/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. RIGHT SIDE

20.000

Half circles REAR denote FRONT outside of bike, rider's perspective

SCALE: 1:5

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-013- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 PILLARTOPSIDESUPPORT- 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 mitersRIGHT THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/20/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: Steel 4"x4" Plate .25" thick 3.500 MAX

Note: Sand .750 2.000 all corners down by at least 9/32" .750 .750

3.500 MAX 2.000

4x #10-32

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-014- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 JIGPILLARPLATE 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/20/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: Steel 4"x8" Plate .25" thick 6.00 3.00 1.00 2.00

1.00

4.00 2.00

4X CLEAR FOR 3/8-24

8.00

4X CLEAR FOR #10-32 THRU CLEAR FOR .190 .20 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A03-016-PILLAR_BASE Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/19/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 2:3 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. ITEM NO. SUB ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTION 1 TABLE AND FRAME WELDING TABLE BOTTOM BRACKET 2 FRONT END SUPPORT 3 REAR END ROLL HOOP SUPPORT

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A04- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLY_2N 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 D THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:15 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 1 OF 5

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 2 8

3

4

ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY. 2 04-A03-004-BB_PLUG BOTTOM BRACKET PLUG 2

BOTTOM BRACKET 3 04-A03-003-FRONT_PLATE SUPPORT PLATE 2 BOTTOM BRACKET 4 04-A04-004-BB_SUPPORT SUPPORT 1 8 92865A622 3/8-24 FASTENERS 12 DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A04- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLY_2N 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 D THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:5 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 3 OF 5

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 8 6 7

5

12

10

11

ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY. 04-A04-002- 5 TUBE_BLOCK_0.875 UPPER TUBE BLOCK 2 6 04-A04-005-ROLL BAR PLUG2 ROLL BAR END PLUG 2 ROLL BAR SUPPORT 7 04-A04-006-ROLL_BAR_POST POST 2 8 92865A622 3/8-24 FASTENERS 12 04-A03-002- 10 TUBE_BLOCK_.875BOTTOM LOWER TUBE BLOCK 2 04-A04-003- 11 CENTER_SUPPORT TUBE BLOCK SUPPORT 1 12 90128A948 10-32 FASTENERS 8 DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A04- Drawn By: AUSTIN HENRY ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLY_2N 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 D THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/2019 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:8 MATERIAL: XXXXXX 4 OF 5

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. WELDING TABLE LAYOUT Note: Center Support and Bottom Bracket Support Pillar will be tac'd to table. Roll bar posts will be clamped or tac'd to table. Frame will be elevated sufficiently such that wheels can be fit.

ROLLBAR

16.50

BOTTOM BRACKET 15.28

54.03

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A04- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 FRAME_JIG_ASSEMBLY_2N 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 D THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:12 MATERIAL: n/a 5 OF 5

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 4 X CLEAR FOR #10-32 CLEAR FOR 5/16 .190 2 REQUIRED

2.000 1.250

.370

.155 1.190

R.4375

.750

.750 1.500

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A03-002- ANGULAR: BEND 2 TUBE_BLOCK_.875BOTTOM 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/24/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: Steel 4"x4" Square tube .125" wall

8x #10-32

1.19

1.25 1.25 3.25 1.25

8.00

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A04-003- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 CENTER_SUPPORT 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:2 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 2.50 .75 4X 3/8-24

Stock: Steel 4"x4" Square tube .125" wall 2.50

NOTE: All hole dimensions and positions same for right and left sides

13.00

9.22

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A04-004-BB_SUPPORT Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/21/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:3 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. QUANTITY: 2

1.50

1.180 Fit with ID of 1.25" OD roll bar tubing

3/8-24 1.00 .50

1.50

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A04-005-ROLL BAR Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 PLUG2 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 6061 ALUMINUM 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Note: Assembly of 2x2 steel tube and 1/4" steel plate. Tube will be tac'd to center of plate.

QUANTITY: 2 CLEAR FOR 3/8-24

45°

14.60

13.22

4.00

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A04-006- Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT ANGULAR: BEND 2 ROLL_BAR_POST 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/30/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:4 MATERIAL: STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. HEADTUBE ANGLE: 73 off horizontal

25.4mm

110mm 60mm

Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TITLE: REV 04-A02-001- 00 Start Date: 1/1/19 FORKASSEMBLY SCALE: 1:5 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. ITEM NO. PART NUMBER QTY. 1 04-A02-004-STEERTUBE 1 04-A02-002- 2 FORKBLADE 3 3 04-A02-003- 2 1 FRONTDROPOUTS

2

3

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A02-001- Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON ANGULAR: BEND 2 NEWFORKASSEMBLY 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:4 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1 NOTE: ALL METRIC DIMENSIONS DESIGNATED WITH "mm". ALL METRIC TOLERANCES ARE AS FOLLOWS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: XX.XX 0.10 XX.X 1

2 REQUIRED

.787 .286

2X R.20 1.735

19.00mm

1.250 .050 CLEAR FOR M8X1.25 R.015 .483 1.000

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: REV TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL: 1/8 04-A02-003- ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Drawn By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 FRONTDROPOUTS THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 12/31/18 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 4130 Steel 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. Stock: 4130 Steel 1.126" OD .061" wall

9.000

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A02-004-STEERTUBE ANGULAR: BEND 2 00 Checked By: XXXXXX TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:1 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. NOTE: Blade is 12.46" in length Final dimensions determined by chain tensioner Blades sourced from NOVA Cycles Supply: NOVA CRMO 25MM ROAD UNICROWN CX Retro FORKBLADES Miters not shown

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A02-006- ANGULAR: BEND 2 FORKBLADERight 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:3 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. NOTE: Blade is 12.46" in length Bottom hole is roughly 1.38" from bottom face Final dimensions determined by chain tensioner

Blades sourced from NOVA Cycles Supply: Top NOVA CRMO 25MM ROAD UNICROWN CX Retro FORKBLADES Miters not shown

1.00

2 x 7mm Bottom

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TITLE: TOLERANCES: REV FRACTIONAL: 1/8 Drawn By: KEYANNA HENDERSON 04-A02-007- ANGULAR: BEND 2 FORKBLADELeft 00 Checked By: KYRA SCHMIDT TWO PLACE DECIMAL: 0.05 THREE PLACE DECIMAL: 0.005 Start Date: 1/31/19 TOLERANCING PER: MMC SCALE: 1:3 MATERIAL: 4130 STEEL 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only.